Matthew Yglesias (February 03, 2008) - Nobody? (Foreign Policy)

Certainly no one believes Hillary had the courage to stand up to Bush/popular opinion at the time. That, to me, seems to be much more relevant.

Posted by Jake | February 3, 2008 3:49 PM

although i believe hillary's capitulation to Bush on the war is one of the main reasons she should NOT be the democratic nominee, i don't believe that she would have started it, had she been president.

i don't even necessarily believe Bush would've started it, had he not had the malevolent whisperings of Cheney and Rumsfeld in his ear.

i think that's the reason he so loves to criticize for being weak on terror--because deep down he knows he lacked the backbone to stand up to his own VP, and what a tragic flaw that turned out to be.

Posted by rob! | February 3, 2008 3:55 PM

As you noted, it's hard to say whether or not Hillary would have elected to invade Iraq in 2003, knowing what we know now and with whom she hangs out. But I'd wager that 9-11 probably would not have happened under a President Hillary in 2001. There's no conceivable way she could have had more incomopetent people in the Pentagon or NSA to allow that awful shit to happen.

Posted by ed | February 3, 2008 3:55 PM

I think you're eliding the difference between "supporting a war which the current presidential administration seems set on starting" and "being president and deciding to start a particular war." The President's great advantage is setting the agenda. Once the agenda is set where "going to war with Iraq" is issue #1, hawkish dems like Clinton go along. But that doesn't mean that they'd have set the agenda in this way themselves.

You're also underestimating the extent to which the administration's sudden shift in focus to Iraq was weird and unexpected. I think one can even imagine a superhawk like McCain, who will support any war on offer, not actually going ahead and putting Iraq on top of the agenda in the climate of 2002, and I think this holds much more strongly for Clinton.

Posted by John | February 3, 2008 3:57 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

"Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there"

That was from 2004. I know there's a pretty damning quote from her in early 2005 too. She's clearly making the argument that the war was good, the execution was bad. Is Mark telling us she was lying then?

Posted by D Robert | February 3, 2008 3:58 PM

I thought her debate answers suggested that she still thought the rationale for going to war was relatively cogent:

CLINTON: [. . .] I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.
Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

That would seem to (at least) discredit the idea that "Hillary did, in fact, all along believe that Bush was committing a huge strategic blunder."

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 3:59 PM

Well, I do think there's a big difference between *initiating* an act of monumentally colossal stupidity and just *going along* with an act of monumentally colossal stupidity just because most of your friends, advisers, donors, and competitors were doing the same.

That's actually why I'm starting to think it's very much a toss-up on riskiness between Obama and Hillary. The fact that Obama would be ignorant and "bold" enough to endorse that politically insane drivers' license proposal (presumably) just because some random adviser suggested it raises huge concerns in my mind on future policy decisions as well.

By contrast, Hillary seems an extremely cautious, risk-adverse politician with a very wide array of cautious, risk-adverse (i.e. hackish) advisors...

Posted by RKU | February 3, 2008 4:00 PM

I should add, I guess, that I don't buy Clinton's distinction, "not going to war, but going to the resolution," given her refusal to support the Levin amendment.

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 4:02 PM

I agree with John at 3:57. Being President means owning the ability to set the agenda and force others to react to you in the political envinonment that you shape. GWB made the decision to go to war in Iraq and shaped it as another front in our response to 9/11. This was moronic and stupid on the merits, but politically it was very popular and forced Dems into a corner, as the 2002 mid-term election results showed. Do I believe HRC crevenly yielded to this political environment rather than demonstrate actual leadership? Yup. Do I believe that if she had the agenda-setting function, she would have launched a war of choice based on dubious information about WMD variously criticized by the CIA, State, and the Department of Energy? Nope. GWB and his neocons had their dream of "national greatness" (i.e., imperialist domination of the Middle East) to motivate them, but I can discren no such strong motivation that would have driven a President Clinton to do the same. Fault her for a lack of nerve and leadership in the opposition, but I find it highly unlikely that she would have committed the same blunder herself.

Posted by scott | February 3, 2008 4:07 PM

I don't think a President Hillary in 2003 could have invaded Iraq.

Bush's base was for it, whereas the Democrats were pretty fractured. I'm not sure having a Democrat would have solidified that base much, whereas I can promise a lot of pro-War Republicans would have discovered a sudden and deep commitment to peace if President Hillary was the Commander-in-Chief.

What would have happened, in all likelihood, is a sort-of ramped up version of Clinton's 90s policy, or Kosovo-on-steroids.

They would have sent in the Air Force, and bombed this shit out of every conceivable target, every "potential" source of "WMD".

They would have killed thousands and thousands of civilians, and in the end, leave the sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power.

I despise Bush, and I rallied against the war in 2003, and I doubt the Clintons would have sent in the troops (politically, I don't think it would be possible for them). But they're foreign policy, and in particularly their views on sanctions and the heavy use of air power, is pretty reprehensible in its own right.

One good thing about a Clinton presidency would be her political inability to launch an invasion of any kind short of another attack on the US. I think Republicans would lose almost all their interest in a war with Iran if Clinton is the Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by matthewcc | February 3, 2008 4:09 PM

The fact that Obama would be ignorant and "bold" enough to endorse that politically insane drivers' license proposal (presumably) just because some random adviser suggested it raises huge concerns in my mind on future policy decisions as well.

Well, Hillary also endorsed it, for a time. I don't think either of them has covered themselves in glory answering that question.

However, whatever the merits of the drivers license proposal (and there is some merit to the idea), it's worthwhile to point out that the president has no authority over that state-level decision.

In other words, if you want to be uncharitable to Obama, he's engaging in a meaningless pander. If you want to be uncharitable to Clinton, she aided and abetted launching a catastrophic war. "Risk-averse" indeed.

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Matthewcc makes a good point. If a Democratic president feels it necessary to use military force, expect a lot of solemn angst from the GOP and talk about the need for an "exit strategy," which they used in response to every intervention of the Clinton administration.

Posted by scott | February 3, 2008 4:16 PM

The ONLY thing I trust the Clintons to do or say is to do the thing that benefits them most. So would it have benefited a ...shiver....President Hillary Clinton to have gone to war at that time? Probably not, because of the Democratic base who supports her. If it was politically expedient...I'd bet dicks to dollars they'd do it in an instant.

Posted by drosz | February 3, 2008 4:17 PM

No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war.

This statement is even more problematic than it appears at first blush.

We know that Hillary believes in preemption, i.e., that portion of the "Bush Doctrine" that say America has the right to start preemptive wars even if we are not under imminent threat.

We also know that Hillary says she believed that Saddam had those infamous WMD's based on the NIE she never read.

So, she believed Saddam had WMD's and was willing to use them, and she believes to this day that America should strike even when there is no imminent threat, so why wouldn't she have been willing to invade?

We can only conclude that she is unwilling to protect America's interests.

Or something like that. That's the whole problem with embracing preemption -- it's insane.

Posted by Brautigan | February 3, 2008 4:18 PM

Just to follow up my own comment about Clinton and Iran:

1. if Hillary signals she is ready and willing to go to war with Iran, the right will be against it in the way they were against the Sudan ("no bombs for Monica!"), Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti.

2. if Hillary signals she is unwilling to go to war with Iran, the right will agitate relentlessly for war, and probably frame all their arguments in thinly or no-so-thinly sexist terms.

In other words, I simply don't see, short of an attack on US soil, a scenario in which Clinton oversees any new ground wars even if she wanted to. Any Democratic President will have their hands tied when it comes to war-making in a way a Republican does not, and this is probably a very good thing.

Posted by matthewcc | February 3, 2008 4:23 PM

The Iraq issue has come back at Hillary at exactly the wrong time.

Which I'm happy about. Any senator in office in 2002 could, fairly in my view, have their entire Senatorial career judged on which way they voted on the Iraq resolution.

Especially if they never admitted error. To not admit error as of 2008 means you're basically worthless as any kind of "leader".

Posted by Steve C | February 3, 2008 4:23 PM

I agree with Ed, above, that 9/11 only could have happened under the uniquely incompetent Bush administration. So only Bush would have invaded Iraq.

That said... can anyone explain this absolute nonsense to me?
Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.

I can't believe this sentence hasn't generated more discussion. This is the stupidest justification for her vote yet. Pretty much pushed this Edwards supporter into Obama's column for good.

Posted by Jim | February 3, 2008 4:24 PM

I have a hard time imagining anyone outside of a very small group of individuals having chosen to start a war with Iraq in 2002-3. Hillary might potentially have done something dumb in that timeframe, but Iraq only happened because of the peculiarities of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Even consummate warmonger and 90's-era Hussein-botherer John McCain probably wouldn't have done it at that point, because there were much more obvious targets -- strengthening the push in Afghanistan, following into Pakistan, taking on Saudi Arabia head-on, etc. The thing about Iraq isn't just that it was a monumentally bad idea, it's that it didn't make sense even if you took as a given a number of incorrect beliefs.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | February 3, 2008 4:24 PM

I don't agree with Matt here, Hillary is afraid of being painted as weak on national defense, so she had to support the IFR or be open to that charge.

She's too smart to have invaded Iraq, it was an incredibly foolish blunder.

When she was First Lady the "Crazies" like Wolfowitz were going around DC trying to get Clinton to invade. Of course he was too smart to do that. So she was aware of the issues.

Posted by grytpype | February 3, 2008 4:25 PM

The first Clinton administration backed the Iraq Liberation Act to support Chalabi's attempts to overthrow Hussein. They employed Kenneth Pollack. Albright loved the legislation, stumped for it nationwide and is now a Clinton advisor. I'm not convinced her advisors would not be telling her to go for it.

Posted by Reality Man | February 3, 2008 4:27 PM

Of course he was too smart to do that.

Yeah, there were no intervening events that shaped the national mood. Cripes. What little evidence we have on her judgment on these things is that her judgment is bad. If people want to throw out the issue, fine, but own up to it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 3, 2008 4:29 PM

I don't agree with Matt here, Hillary is afraid of being painted as weak on national defense, so she had to support the IFR or be open to that charge.

She's too smart to have invaded Iraq, it was an incredibly foolish blunder.

Except she said, last Thursday:

Knowing that [Saddam Hussein] was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment.

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 4:31 PM

I disagree -- it was absolutely a political calculation.

You say "I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions." But that doesn't work. Think back for a moment. The media and every politician out there was gung ho for war and -- more importantly -- no one was thinking at that time that it would be hard to execute.

It was a lonely time to be against the war -- noone was ready to listen. And she didn't have the political courage to make people stop and do just that.

Posted by Hurricane99 | February 3, 2008 4:32 PM

""No one believes that if Hillary had been president she would have started the war.""

That almost strikes me as worse than if she would have started a war if she had been President. At least then she made a principled vote based on the information she had at the time. I can at least buy that she really did think Iraq was a threat (she wasn't the only Dem duped into believing that) and that she was simply given bad intel (which would explain her Levin Amendment vote).

But to say that she would never have started the war had she been Prez, but voted for the war resolution anyway? It just feeds the line that she'll do anything that is politically expedient. And I fear for a President that will sell out our party's values and our nation's values simply for political expediency.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 3, 2008 4:36 PM

I'm changing my name to realscott to distinguish myself from the other scott posting above.

The relevant political memory in Clintonland in 2002 was the 1990 Senate vote about getting Saddam out of Kuwait. They saw lots of people who voted against it (the hawkish Sam Nunn, for instance) see their presidential ambitions vanish. Bill was very grateful not to have to vote on it, and said stuff on both sides on the issue. (A heck of an anti-John Kerry ad could have been made against him.) She wasn't thinking of anything other than a safe vote. Hardly a profile in courage but a risk adverse president not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by realscott | February 3, 2008 4:36 PM

Hussain was a problem. And after the attack on New York City with thousands of her constituants dying it was no time for the New York Senator to be subtle about the problem of Hussain or anyone else.

The authorization was the right thing to do. It got the inspectors back into Iraq. The war was Presidents Bushes call and he fucked it up. The authorization could have been used to get rid of Saddam without totally destroying the country.

Clinton did the right thing and Bush simply abused the authority granted him.

Posted by ken | February 3, 2008 4:38 PM

I don't think you need to make the case against Hillary as a candidate by asserting that she would have done the same thing as GWB. The fact that she assented to what's proven to be a disastrous war and has had difficulty admitting the mistake says enough about her judgment and political courage. For me, the Iraq war and its bloody consequences have been fairly radicalizing, and if you're going to pass muster with me you'd better not have signed on (Obama) or have the balls and the decency to admit your error (Edwards). Hillary's failure to do either is insulting both to our intelligence and to the people of Iraq, whose lives we've either destroyed or made unbelievably hard.

Posted by scott | February 3, 2008 4:40 PM

"Hardly a profile in courage but a risk adverse president not necessarily a bad thing."

Unless thousands of troops lives are at stake.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | February 3, 2008 4:40 PM

I don't know why people don't refer to her floor speech before the vote more often:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

That's the one, isn't it? It's pretty long, and dovetails to a fair extent, I think, with what she's saying now. (I support Obama, by the way.)

But she's doing some seriously Clintonian parsing when she says (or implies) that it wasn't a vote for war. Here's what she said at the time:

"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."

So it wasn't a vote for war... it was just a vote that she knew could "lead to war." Seems like a bogus distinction to me.

And personally, I think she voted out of a mix of substantive and political reasons. I think she believed it was probably the right call, and also that it was politically expedient.

Posted by Read her speech. | February 3, 2008 4:46 PM

I don't agree with the commenters above claiming that Hillary's AUMF vote was an act of political cowardice.

Hillary (and Bill for that matter) are hawks. Always have been--for all the Obama=JFK talk out there, Hillary is far closer to JFK in foreign policy terms. Read her speech from that debate--she made it clear that she thought "regime change" was a worthy goal, the only problem she had with Bush's approach was that he should've enlisted more allies.

After the war began, her criticisms were always of the way the war was conducted, and her call for withdrawal now is in much the same vein.

In short, she thought removing Hussein by force was (at least in theory) a good idea, and just thinks Bush fucked up the execution.

Seriously, Hillary's hawkishness has been constant and unwavering. It is, in fact, the main reason I have for NOT voting for her--I think she'll be far more likely to bomb and invade other countries than Obama.

On the other hand, practically every time Obama opens his mouth about domestic policy he pisses me off, so I'm well and truly still undecided.

Posted by gustav | February 3, 2008 4:50 PM

It's kind of a hilarious argument. She wouldn't have started the war herself, she just unquestioningly marched along because Bush started it. Therefore, she is most qualified to be President and best suited to end the war.

Posted by RR18 | February 3, 2008 4:53 PM

What an odd strawman argument from Matthew. "Support the war" and "initiate the war" obviously aren't synonyms.

Matthew might enjoy the primary season a bit more if he understood that restricting himself to intellectually honest arguments was the best way to go.

Posted by Petey | February 3, 2008 4:57 PM

Matt, you are making an absolutely critical point. If no one believes Hillary actually supported the invasion in March 2003, then everyone ought to believe that she is a coward. Only a coward would be thinking to herself, "This invasion is a bad idea; the inspectors should be allowed to remain there given what Blix and Baradei are saying, but I won't speak up, even though I am one of the five most famous Americans and one of the most influential Senators." She has no business claiming -- as she repeatedly does -- that she is the superior leader. She has no business claiming any political courage whatsoever. I just wish Obama would have made this point, a point Matt has been making for a year now.

Posted by RaymondA | February 3, 2008 4:57 PM

gustav:

I hear you on the domestic policy issue, what with the Social Security "crisis," the "Harry and Louise" mailer, and his (at minimum) ill-judged rhetorical bouquet to Saint Ronnie. As I said above, though, the bottom line for me is Iraq and now Iran. On both, Obama strikes me as fundamentally less hawkish, and less stupidly so, than HRC, if you look at his remarks on Iraq and on Hillary's attacks on him for saying that he'd like to talk to Iran. I'll be voting for Obama in Virginia in 9 days not because he thrills me on the domestic side (after Edwards, neither does that) but because I want a guy in the Oval Office who's less likely based on past performance to get us into another catastrophically stupid and bloody war.

Posted by scott | February 3, 2008 4:59 PM

"Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do."

The sad thing is that, until it was expanded on a few comments later, I assumed that the "he" was referring to Bush - and while it seemed an wonderfully & impossibly snarky remark, it also seemed at the very least fairly accurate . . .

Posted by Dan S. | February 3, 2008 5:01 PM

I think she'll be far more likely to bomb and invade other countries than Obama.

OK, that too, but what I meant to say was that she'll be more likely than Obama to bomb and invade other countries. :)

Posted by gustav | February 3, 2008 5:01 PM

Bombed is what I hope to be during the Snoozer Bowl.

Posted by scott | February 3, 2008 5:03 PM

On driver's licenses, the commenter above who said that Obama took that position because of one adviser is just dead wrong on the facts. Obama was a state legislator, and there was a bill that would have allowed illegals to obtain Drivers licenses. Obama voted for it back around the year 2000. Eight states, including Utah and Arizona have such laws. So by the time it became in issue at the debates this year, he could either flip flop or stand his ground. He stood his ground. I am not sure flip flopping would have been politically more savvy; it might have been dumber.

Posted by RaymondA | February 3, 2008 5:05 PM

Does anyone know when, exactly, Hillary Clinton actually expressed any criticism for the evidence and rationale for war. Here she is in December 2003:

When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power."

...

I don't think she's ever claimed that she was anything but convinced that Saddam had undeclared or undestroyed chem/bio WMDs by the evidence in Congress' hands at the time. Why doesn't anyone challenge her on this? I mean, the Senate report on Iraq-related intel is still laughably in the works; has anyone ever reported on any definitive intel that the Senate had but everyone else lacked? I mean, nearly half the Dem caucus in the Senate voted against the AUMF, so it wasn't a damning array of evidence or anything.

Posted by Zach | February 3, 2008 5:09 PM

It's a ridiculous point. In 2003 Hillary Clinton wasn't the President and no one is under the impression she was.

She was, however, a hugely influential Senator, one from a safe seat in an antiwar state, a leading Presidential prospect, and married to the Party's leader.

No one is condemning her for what she did as President. They're condemning her for what she did as one of her party's leaders--support a disastrous invasion, while rhetorically undermining those who were opposing it.

There are people who believe that she screwed up in her job as Senator when she authorized this war. Saying to them "yes, but she didn't screw up as President, so you should totally vote for her!" isn't really a compelling argument.

Of course, if I were one of the Villagers who supported this war, I'd like this position to be true. If they can convince themselves only George Bush, God Emperor of America, has any responsibility for this war, well then, nobody else has to get fired like Judy did.

Posted by anonymiss | February 3, 2008 5:11 PM

What an odd strawman argument from Matthew. "Support the war" and "initiate the war" obviously aren't synonyms.

Given that the entire post is about making sense of that distinction, your criticism loses a little force.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 3, 2008 5:11 PM

Does anyone know when, exactly, Hillary Clinton actually expressed any criticism for the evidence and rationale for war. Here she is in December 2003:

When Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" gave her the opening to say she had been misled when she voted for the Senate resolution authorizing war, Clinton countered with a hard line: "There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power."

...

I don't think she's ever claimed that she was anything but convinced that Saddam had undeclared or undestroyed chem/bio WMDs by the evidence in Congress' hands at the time. Why doesn't anyone challenge her on this? I mean, the Senate report on Iraq-related intel is still laughably in the works; has anyone ever reported on any definitive intel that the Senate had but everyone else lacked? I mean, nearly half the Dem caucus in the Senate voted against the AUMF, so it wasn't a damning array of evidence or anything.

Posted by Zach | February 3, 2008 5:17 PM

I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions.

Ummm ... given how little the political price is for having backed the war (and given how the Villagers still act as if backing the BushCO war machine is the sine qua non of being "serious about national security" ... and how people think the Villagers are a bunch of hippies -- no matter how much in fact the Villagers rabidly hate hippies -- so that "even the liberal media types think Sen. Moonbat (D-Blue State) is too liberal and not serious about national security ... so she must really be a dirty hippy ... so as much as I hate the war, I can't vote for her"), it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton, who certainly is shrewd, would have realized that even backing a huge blunder of a war would have been less politically problematic than opposing the war. And that's a huge problem, ain't it?

Pace Jake (@ February 3, 2008 3:49 PM) who I bet needs to read Federalist #10 again: we can't rely on political bravery. The problem is that, thanks to our media, et al., ambition is no longer being made to counteract ambition.

Posted by DAS | February 3, 2008 5:17 PM

But I'd wager that 9-11 probably would not have happened under a President Hillary in 2001. There's no conceivable way she could have had more incomopetent people in the Pentagon or NSA to allow that awful shit to happen.
Posted by ed

Yo, rocket scientist! 9/11 was launched in 1998, after AQ saw the US was doing nothing to go after them after Somalia, WTC Attack #1, Khobar Towers, the creation of terrorist camps, and the Embassy Bombings. That was on Clinton's hubby's watch.

Nor, rocket scientist, do careerists at the Pentagon, CIA, FBI (in particular) assigned counter-terror duties get changed out by Administrations. The same people that poked the pootch on 9/11 had portraits of Clinto humg in their offices 9 months before.

Even if the FBI in particular had been more competent, the legal and cultural barriers created at intelligence agencies of not sharing with domestic agencies external to US threats, the onerous FISA obstacles, and the cultural taboo of intercepting angry young male Muslims and grilling them on their intentions out of PC "profiling" concerns meant that 9/11 had as high, or higher a chance of succeeding under a Noble Algore administration.

However, I do part with Republicans on if NOble Algore would have hit Iraq, or Clinton would have if KSM had thought it up and done it earlier - or the Filipino torture had not uncovered the Boijinko Plot and IT had happened...

I don't think they (the Dems alternatively in power in 2001) would have been as stubborn once the Euroweenies said they wouldn't ally with us outside a few nations, nor the Muslim lands. If they did, it would have been a fast in and out like the Gulf War to make Saddam pay a high price for defying the 17 UN Security Council resolutions or hopefully die himself.

I think they would have not gone in without a post-war plan, or ever destroyed the command and control part of the Iraqi state by throwing 95% of the military, police, and government employees out of work.

Nor drunk the Israel-Neocon poison like Bush did, the stupidity of Sharansky democracy...or tolerated the idiots - like Rumsfeld and crew
being allowed to fail for years without questioning the ruinous costs or light casualties.

Posted by chris ford | February 3, 2008 5:25 PM

I agree - if HRC had thought the Iraq move ill-advised, she should have stood on the floor of the Senate and said so. She simply should have held Bush to his Ground Zero promise to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice and continue to focus on bin Laden and al Qaeda. If she had done so, yes, some would have reviled her, but if she has half the leadership skills she claims to bring to the Oval Office, she might have at least slowed the movement to Iraq. Thanks to either ill advisement and/or poor judgment, she did not do so.

Why no one has raised this argument - to her, Schumer or Giuliani - is beyond me. President Bush made a promise to her constituents and broke it. She should have fearlessly held him to it.

Posted by GordonsGirl | February 3, 2008 5:30 PM

Maybe in some sci-fi parallel universe President Clinton in 2002-2003 would have over-ruled the generals, ignored the intelligence community, defied the international community, and conspired with Tony Blair to snow the press and the public with bogus "facts", eviscerated NIEs, and terrifying images of Bedouin tribesmen wielding light-sabers.

The fact remains, Bush made this up out of the whole cloth.

Too much is made of the failure of the Congress people to convincingly gnash their teeth, shake their fists, and utter maledictions when foiled by Bush. In the real world, revenge is a dish best enjoyed cold.

That said, Clinton's repetition of the "Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998" lie is a Big Lie technique indistinguishable from any that Bush uses, and does not inspire confidence.

Posted by serial catowner | February 3, 2008 5:35 PM

OK, geniuses, here's my question: On the question of Iraq, how does Obama, if he is the nominee, campaign against John McCain?

McCain, keep in mind, will be talking about success and "victory." It may all be bogus, but that's arguing at the margins, and, frankly, not very persausive to the public. Given a choice between "victory" and "pulling out," guess which one the American people will likely choose?

How does Obama handle that?

Posted by John Petty | February 3, 2008 5:50 PM

Hmmm, "started the war". To get the answer you want you have to frame the question the way you want it. She may not have "started the war", but I believe she would have responded with force, as her husband limply did when avenging the failed assassination attempt against Bush 1.
Once engaged, would she have reined the military in?
Bill Clinton ignored terrorism, Bush over-reacted, there's no telling how HRC would have performed - but she would have been surrounded by essentially the same leaders in the military, the state dept., and the intelligence community.
Electing Hillary or McCain and there won't be real change.

Posted by fougasseu | February 3, 2008 5:57 PM

McCain, keep in mind, will be talking about success and "victory." It may all be bogus, but that's arguing at the margins, and, frankly, not very persausive to the public. Given a choice between "victory" and "pulling out," guess which one the American people will likely choose?

Well, Obama will be arguing from advantage in that the public already agrees with him.

Further, the current (still intolerable) levels of violence in Iraq are probably, unfortunately, unsustainable. Finite resources will prevent the military from maintaining the current troop levels past this spring. Unless the Iraqis reach a political accomodation before then (and it doesn't look like they will), McCain will be trying to apply his victory argument to a deteriorating security situation. I don't see that being very persuasive.

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 6:04 PM

Yo, rocket scientist! 9/11 was launched in 1998, after AQ saw the US was doing nothing to go after them after Somalia, WTC Attack #1, Khobar Towers, the creation of terrorist camps, and the Embassy Bombings. That was on Clinton's hubby's watch. - Chris Ford

Um, WJ Clinton didn't do nothing. He pursued Al Qaeda, but in a constrained manner. He didn't want to piss off the Saudis too much (he didn't want to trigger an oil embargo or something like that) by following leads that would have shut down Al Qaeda's money train, but embarrassed the Saudis. Also, whenever he did respond to Al Qaeda, the very same people who after "9/11 changed everything" now say that even suggesting GWB is mis-firing are treasonous and "not serious about national security" were yelling at Clinton for "wagging the dog".

Bush, OTOH, shut down investigations, and did many things to signal that he wouldn't seriously pursue Al Qaeda (indeed, GW Bush only made a show out of deposing the Taliban, leaving AQ somewhat intact ... and then made sure that AQ had a playground in the middle of the Middle East by deposing AQ's enemy Saddam Hussein ... what more could AQ have wanted? nu? this is why they have felt no need to attack us after 9/11 -- we responded as they wanted us to, so why should they change things? see, GWB is keeping us safe -- by, while looking tough, actually capitulating!). So we were attacked.

Posted by DAS | February 3, 2008 6:18 PM

southpaw, John Petty ...

southpaw's remarks assume that people want to vote for someone who thinks like they do. As quasi-fascist as it is, people want a "strong leader" ... even if people oppose the war, they may very well vote for the candidate who talks about "winning the war" and "sticking to our guns" over one who wants to "pull out".

Posted by DAS | February 3, 2008 6:24 PM

southpaw's remarks assume that people want to vote for someone who thinks like they do. As quasi-fascist as it is, people want a "strong leader" ... even if people oppose the war, they may very well vote for the candidate who talks about "winning the war" and "sticking to our guns" over one who wants to "pull out".

I doubt it, but it's possible. Even if that is the case, you've still got to conclude that Obama's preferable to Clinton.

Obama's argument is that he's always opposed the war because he's always disagreed with it. He's followed his own convictions, "strong leader," and intends to continue. Obama's disagreement with Iraq was based on the facts not the politics, so it doesn't foreclose the possibility that Obama is the sort of ubermensch your voters would prefer.

Hillary's argument is that she supported the war out of political expediency; her convictions remain mysterious. Since the war is no longer politically expedient, we won't have to worry about her supporting it. That all may be true, but it's sure to turn off a voter looking for a "strong leader."

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 6:45 PM

Saint Barack is infinitely preferable to the she devil who single handedly got us into a terrible war. From his unwavering opposition to the Iraq war (the firebrand speech where he opposes "dumb wars" not "all wars" which he took off his website for a time), to the unrelenting opposition he showed while in the senate from day one, tackling this issue with the courage of one with a mission, opposing all funding, speaking long and loud against the debacle in Iraq, putting all his energy into persuading others to join him in ending the war immediately!
He must be nominated or all is lost!

Posted by fed up | February 3, 2008 7:37 PM

Well of course Hillary wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. The Republicans would have criticized her for it!

Posted by calling all toasters | February 3, 2008 8:06 PM

I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions. Insofar as she thought the war was politically savvy, that would almost certainly have been related to a view that the war wasn't a huge substantive error.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Bill Clinton's remarks after the '02 elections that "The American people will support a candidate who's wrong and strong over someone who's weak and right." That's pretty illustrative. I think the Clintons were thinking that, even if the Iraq War turned out to be a mistake, erring on the side of using force would still be a more saleable position with the public than refraining from using force and saying "I told you so" after the fact.

Posted by Another Chris | February 3, 2008 8:21 PM

I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions. Insofar as she thought the war was politically savvy, that would almost certainly have been related to a view that the war wasn't a huge substantive error.

I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Bill Clinton's remarks after the '02 elections that "The American people will support a candidate who's wrong and strong over someone who's weak and right." That's pretty illustrative. I think the Clintons were thinking that, even if the Iraq War turned out to be a mistake, erring on the side of using force would still be a more saleable position with the public than refraining from using force and saying "I told you so" after the fact.

Posted by Another Chris | February 3, 2008 8:21 PM

Even John "100 years of war" McCain probably wouldn't have gone to war. But more to the point is the need to replace those who let the "war of civilization" thesis get the upperhand.

Posted by The Other Alan | February 3, 2008 8:28 PM

Obama is preferable to Clinton but he is not a leader on the Iraq War. Obama took his anti-war speech off his website after the war began. When he was called out by the Black Commentator, Obama explained the speech was removed because it was dated and his staff wanted to put up fresh news clips.

Obama's been inconsistent on Iraq at best. He has changed his position on funding, timelines and withdrawal. Obama may have better judgment than Clinton but he is not above hedging or expediency and his leadership on Iraq ended with that speech in 2002.

Posted by hedges | February 3, 2008 8:28 PM

It's stupid to even debate this. Hillary was not President in 2003. If she were, we don't know who would have been her advisers, or where the neocons would have been (although it is very likely some of them would have been in positions of power, it's not clear they would be heading the DoD or State).

More importantly, we don't know what moves she might have made, for instance, to allow the UN inspectors more time to certify Iraq as not having nukes - which, more than anything else, would have derailed the enterprise. She might have actually gone back to the UN for a second resolution - and not gotten it, which might or might not have derailed it.

She might have listened to Shinsheki when he said we needed half a million troops to do the occupation - and passed - or not.

What we know NOW is precisely what Matt said. And we know Clinton is unduly influenced by the AIPAC crowd and Israel.

The problem NOW, people, is not Iraq. It's Iran and Pakistan.

And there we know right NOW that Clinton is a hawk yet again. And so is Obama. They may not be as much hawks as McCain - that lunatic - but that only means they won't start those wars sooner rather than later. It says nothing about whether or not they will start another war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 3, 2008 8:29 PM

So if Hillary were president she would not have invaded Iraq. But as a Senator, she voted on the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Wow. For Penn to be speaking about this means that his polls have shown that her poor judgment on the Iraq vote severely hurts her.

Posted by phidda | February 3, 2008 8:53 PM

Personally, I "know" that no Democrat (except a President Lieberman) would have gone to war with Iraq after 9/11. I also "believe" that a Senator Obama would have voted exactly as Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards did-that his anti-war opposition was the luxury of a minor politician with no responsbility to actually vote. And that if he wins, Matt is going to be terribly disillusioned.

Posted by tdraicer | February 3, 2008 9:34 PM

But I'd wager that 9-11 probably would not have happened under a President Hillary in 2001. There's no conceivable way she could have had more incomopetent people in the Pentagon or NSA to allow that awful shit to happen.

Aside from the fact that this wager is evidence-free and very, very stupid, it merits pointing out that the Pentagon and NSA didn't, in 2001, have anything to do with stopping terrorism.

The Pentagon is a military animal, not a spying or law-enforcement agency, and the NSA's then-purpose was "to collect information that constitutes foreign intelligence or counterintelligence without acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons" (in otherwords, to spy on spies abroad).

The relevent agency so filled with "incompetents" was the CIA, and the "incompetents" were appointed by the same Clintons for whom the appointment of "incompetents" is not, to you, "conceivable."

Posted by Shinyk | February 3, 2008 9:36 PM

Bush was committing a huge strategic blunder but that she pretended not to believe that because she thought it was important to her presidential ambitions. I don't think I really buy that. Among other things, I don't think Clinton would have thought that backing a huge strategic blunder would help her presidential ambitions. Insofar as she thought the war was politically savvy, that would almost certainly have been related to a view that the war wasn't a huge substantive error.

Fair enough, but I do think if Lincoln Chafee is to be believed, most Democrats who voted for it, who knew the Bush administration's "evidence" was transparently garbage, were taking a risk: that Gulf War II would go just like Gulf War I and then they would look like dirty peacenik hippies if they had voted against it. The alternative to that outcome is what we have now: a huge strategic blunder. Hillary Clinton may not have *known* it was going to be a huge strategic blunder (doesn't speak too well for her foreign policy judgment, at the very least), but she had to have known that this was a gamble. She rolled the dice, and it seems to me pretty important for Democrats to *not* reward this reckless risk-taking.

Posted by Hunter H. | February 3, 2008 9:41 PM

I also "believe" that a Senator Obama would have voted exactly as Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards did-that his anti-war opposition was the luxury of a minor politician with no responsbility to actually vote. And that if he wins, Matt is going to be terribly disillusioned.

Obama was running for his Senate seat when he came out against the war, so it was very much a consequential decision (at the time, thought potentially devastating) for Obama's prospects. He wasn't just some dude spouting off on the internet.

Posted by southpaw | February 3, 2008 9:47 PM

The "Obama took the speech of his website" argument is the lamest of all Hillary talking points.

The facts are simple: The invasion of Iraq took place on March 20, 2003, 2 days after Bush's ultimatum to Saddam. Obama, while a candidate for US Senate, vehemently and publicly opposed that war literally up to the last minute.

Here are two examples of what Obama did after his October 2002 speech that I was able to find through a simple Nexis search:

On March 4, 2003, an AP story picked up by an Illinois newspaper, the Belleville News Democrat, states as follows:

"Barack Obama is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging his Democratic opponents in the U.S. Senate race to take a stand on the question....'What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays itself out,' said Obama, a state senator from Chicago."

On March 17, 2003, the Chicago Sun Times reported this:

"Thousands of demonstrators packed Daley Center Plaza for a two- hour rally Sunday [two days before Bush issued his ultimatum against Saddam and four days before the invasion], then marched through downtown in Chicago's largest protest to date against an Iraq war. Crowd estimates from police and organizers ranged from 5,000 to 10,000.... State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) told the crowd, 'It's not too late' to stop the war."

The website "incident" occurred in June 2003 after the invasion was a fait accompli. No more calls for restraint could stop it. The question was how do we "fix it" now that we "broke it." And the whole website incident lasted about a day. Obama took down the speech because his campaign wanted to look forward not backward, but when a local black newspaper called him and said some were reading into the website removal a change of his actual position on the wisdom of the Iraq invasion, Obama immediately had his webmaster put the speech back up to defeat that unwarranted inference.

All of this is highly relevant, because Hillary's account of her own actions in the October 2002 - March 20, 2003 period (March 20 being the day of the invasion) is that she voted, not to authorize war, but inspections, and that when the inspectors were there in March 2003, she, in her own mind, opposed the invasion and would not have carried it out had she been President.

A key point that Josh is making and that none of the HIllary defenders above can coherently answer is, if Hillary Clinton is telling the truth that she secretly opposed the invasion on March 20, 2003, then she cannot possibly claim the mantle of a leader, because she did not speak out against the prospect of invasion, even though she, due to her fame and importance as a personage, had one of the loudest megaphones to do so. If she is telling the truth, she is a coward.

And she exhibited a form of cowardice far worse than even the worst cowardice that could conceivably be attributed to the fleeting Obama website "incident."

Posted by RaymondA | February 3, 2008 11:18 PM

Yo, rocket scientist! 9/11 was launched in 1998,

No, I'm pretty sure it was in 2001.

Posted by Wernher Von Braun | February 3, 2008 11:37 PM

Aside from the fact that this wager is evidence-free and very, very stupid, it merits pointing out that the Pentagon and NSA didn't, in 2001, have anything to do with stopping terrorism.

Alright, you've attempted to cover your ass. You can go home now.

Posted by Commander Bunnypants | February 3, 2008 11:41 PM

I am too lazy to look it up, but as someone mentioned upthread, Hillary is spinning with that business about Saddam throwing out inspectors in 1998. I think they left of their own accord (because the CIA was believed to have infiltrated their operation?).

Posted by Lucy | February 3, 2008 11:54 PM

Alright, you've attempted to cover your ass. You can go home now.

This marks the first time anyone's accused me of being the Pentagon. Points for originality, I guess.

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 12:54 AM

Hillary Clinton has done not a single thing to put any significant road blocks in the way of the Bush foreign policy in the Middle East. The totality of her statements, non-statements and actions since at least 2002 suggest that she is basically on board with that policy, and has only stylistic and tactical objections to it. That's why she's the neocons' favorite Democrat.

Not only would she have gotten us into Iraq in one way or another, but she's going to get us into another war over there if elected. One piece of evidence: when Kofi Annan and Tony Blair were trying to get an international force into Lebanon to end the Israel-Lebanon war and prevent it from sparking an expanded conflict, Hillary Clinton was on the streets in New York with pro-Israel fanatics, launching verbal missiles at Syria and Iran, upping the ante and doing her best to promote further instability.

Mark Penn is a stooge. He knows Clinton is getting killed on this issue, for good reason. And he's trying to do the best he can to pull her out of the weeds. But it's too late. Her misleading effort to reconstruct herself and her record is transparent campaign season buncombe.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 4, 2008 1:35 AM

Senator Obama held an opinion against the war. He supported Kerry's vote on the war. Senator Obama did not have a heroic anti war position and did not take a heroic action to fight the war.

Senator Obama said the following about Hillary's vote:

"So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

"Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]

Posted by stellaa | February 4, 2008 2:17 AM

The problem with counterfactuals is that we can see the downsides of what we did, but we can't see the downsides of what we DIDN'T do. If the majority had voted no, it's a virtual certainty that Saddam would still be in power, the already-collapsing sanctions would be gone, and Iraq would be doing business as usual--a huge oil deal was signed with Total/Fina/Elf in 2002 when the sanctions were still technically in force. For those who don't know the history, that would mean an aggressive, genocidal police state fueled by billions in oil revenues engaging in a nuclear arms race with Iran and Saudi Arabia (at least), and competing with Al Qaeda to be our biggest threat.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'd have a lot more respect for him if he'd stick with his more honest position helpfully posted by stellaa above.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 4, 2008 2:35 AM

there are a lot of really dumb arguments being put out there about this iraq mess.

by the logic of obama supporters, obama is the only person qualified to be the nominee, because every other prospective presidential candidate, clinton, edwards, kerry, all voted for aumf.

so obama, who wasn't even there, is more somehow more qualified?

he's not even running on an anti war platform.

he's not an anti war candidate.

he is not qualified to fix the situation just because he made a speech about it!

hillary clinton voted to give bush the authority to use force as a stick to use with saddam. seventy percent of the electorate supported that move.

most of that number, the large portion in the middle who gave bush the benefit of the doubt and now regret, sympathize with hillary!

she made a mistake and trusted bush to do the right thing, just like the great majority of americans.

obama cannot win these voters.

yet, hillary's vote on the aumf proves she will fight. she cannot be outflanked by a hawk.

obama will lose to mccain. his pants are around his ankles. the repubs will say "he was against the war before he was for it" and obama will fold like a cheap suit.

hillary has vowed to begin getting troops out in 60 days. she cannot be called weak.

checkmate hillary.

Posted by english teacher | February 4, 2008 4:25 AM

english teacher:

"yet, hillary's vote on the aumf proves she will fight. she cannot be outflanked by a hawk."

So you agree it was a political move by Hillary.

"she made a mistake and trusted bush to do the right thing, just like the great majority of americans."

That's not what she says.

"she cannot be called weak."

She's weak. She voted for the path of least resistance. Everyone knows it...Republicans know it, Democrats know it, dogs freakin' know it. Her principles are on display for all to see. In any event, her argument for the war is better than the one her supporters are making on this thread. Judgement, Judgement, Judgement...where was it?

Posted by drosz | February 4, 2008 9:05 AM

So now Obama's statements, well after the fact, that he cannot be certain how he would have voted because he did not have all the intelligence reports, somehow undercut his original judgment?

I don't think so, because the only intelligence available to Senators that contradicted what was in the press and available to Obama in 2002 was intelligence that would have only DEEPENED Obama's skepticism about going to war. I refer of course to the intelligence that Clinton never bothered to read.

Posted by RaymondA | February 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Penn reduces Obama's advantage on Iraq to having give "a speech." In fact, Obama opposed the war eloquently and repeatedly from the time of that Oct. 2002 speech right up through March 2003 and beyond. In her Oct. 2002 speech, Hillary did frame her vote in support of the resolution authorizing force as a means of obtaining a U.N. resolution to renew thorough weapons inspections and cautioned against "a rush to war." But when Bush did rush to war in precisely the manner she had warned against, As Matt and Jake suggest, Hillary did not speak out; instead, she offered rather tepid support to Bush on at least three occasions in March '03. Obama's statements in that month are contrasted with Hillary's here.

Posted by Asp | February 4, 2008 11:36 AM

Obama's argument is that he's always opposed the war because he's always disagreed with it. He's followed his own convictions, "strong leader," and intends to continue. Obama's disagreement with Iraq was based on the facts not the politics, so it doesn't foreclose the possibility that Obama is the sort of ubermensch your voters would prefer.

That's IT? That's your argument for why people would choose Obama's anti-war stance over McCain's "victory"?

We're doomed.

Posted by John Petty | February 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Petty's right. It's foolish for Obama to play to the peanut gallery on this one.

Would-be political psychics will confidently tell us exactly what was in everyone else's mind, but they and others from the peace-at-any-price corner lost the argument overwhelmingly in 1991, 1998, and 2002. Attempts to re-write history or pretend, Michael Moore-like that the choice in 2003 was between war and everybody lives happily ever after, aren't going to fly outside the echo chamber.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 4, 2008 12:17 PM

If Hillary Clinton thought George Bush would fall on his face, by going to war in Iraq, and she could please her own constituency at the same time, why not vote yes? It was a win, win situation. America never left after the first Gulf War. So, Gulf War II was inevitable. With all the vested self-interest in the Middle East, the thinnest of pretexts would be acceptable for a continuance of hostilities. Senator Obama isn't beholden to all the special interests at least not in so far that it clouded his judgment. Common sense says, it's Hillary turn to pay the piper.

A vote for Barack Obama would be like a breath of fresh air – as opposed to aiding & abetting the Clintons in their de facto end-run around the 22nd Amendment – Bill Clinton running for a third term as president. Does a leopard change its spots? And, Hillary is like Poison Ivy; you know what you’re going to get. We will have a woman president someday, but we'll know her when we see her. She'll have that certain something. But whatever that something is, we're certainly seeing it in Obama. Yes, we can turn the page: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 4, 2008 12:31 PM

I don't have anything against Sen. Obama, whom I like very much. I can't say the same for his supporters, however, who seem both politically clueless and filled with hostility.

They show up in the Democratic Party at the last minute, and think they ought to run everything. Every time we've listened to the "more-progressive-than-thou" crowd, we've gone down to defeat.

Posted by John Petty | February 4, 2008 2:14 PM

She's weak. She voted for the path of least resistance. Everyone knows it...Republicans know it,

This Republican doesn't know that. Since Clinton has, at one time or another, advocated or voted for invasions in the Balkans, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, and Rwanda, it seems to me she's at least as bellicose as McCain is on my side. And at least McCain knows enough about war to make appropriate, nuanced criticisms of strategy when both timely and appropriate. Clinton's foreign policy instincts are more similar to Bush's than McCain's.

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 2:22 PM

You've got to be kidding.

Posted by John Petty | February 4, 2008 3:16 PM

"Since Clinton has, at one time or another, advocated or voted for invasions in the Balkans, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, and Rwanda"

Really? Sorry, bud, you gotta prove advocacy on the Balkans, Sudan and Rwanda. If you do, I'll say you're right. But I don't see how you can, and saying her husband advocated for it is not the answer I'm looking for.

But you're post doesn't make much sense...even if she did (and if she did I'll say, you're right, she's definitely a hawk beyond all things), why does that make her not prone to political expendiency?

Posted by drosz | February 4, 2008 3:54 PM

You've got to be kidding.

Senator Clinton has given a great many speeches advocating and supporting invasions of this place or that place. I suggest you read the texts of those speeches.

There's a reason that Commentary (Neocon central) doesn't hold nearly the antipathy for Senator Clinton that the National Review (a mixed bag of Conservatives) or the WSJ (fiscal conservatives all) do.

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 3:56 PM

You said her "instincts" were closer to Bush's than to McCain's.

In the first place, I don't get the distinction between Bush and McCain. They seem like peas in the same pod to me.

Secondly, to say that Hillary's foreign policy would be anything like Bush's is just weird.

Posted by John Petty | February 4, 2008 4:01 PM

Rwanda

"I believe if I had moved we might have saved at least a third of those lives. I think she clearly would have done that."-Bill Clinton

Balkans

"I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"-Hillary Clinton

Sudan

"Action by the United States, in concert with the international community, is long overdue. We need to respond quickly to the African Union's request for UN peacekeepers in Darfur, and we need to provide those peacekeepers with a strong mandate and the resources required to protect civilians."-Hillary Clinton

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 4:23 PM

Well done!!

I concede...she is definitely a hawk beyond all else.

Posted by drosz | February 4, 2008 4:32 PM

In the first place, I don't get the distinction between Bush and McCain.

McCain's a hawk's hawk. He talks almost exclusively about defeating enemies.

Bush, on the other hand, talks of using war as a transformative force to test the Neoconservative democracy-promotion hypothesis.

I don't like either, but Bush's way is more dangerous, since the battlefield is everwhere and the war is never-ending.

Secondly, to say that Hillary's foreign policy would be anything like Bush's is just weird.

"I am very pleased that this president (WJC) and administration have made democracy one of the centerpieces of our foreign policy...America's military involvements should not be limited to 'splendid little wars.'"-HRC 1999

Who does this sound more like?

Posted by Shinyk | February 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Every time we've listened to the "more-progressive-than-thou" crowd, we've gone down to defeat.

Hey, thanks again for the Iraq War. That was awesome.

Posted by ed | February 4, 2008 9:42 PM

Helooo, ed? The Iraq war started in 1991, when Hillary was in Arkansas. If you don't remember, check with the tens of thousands of Americans deployed to the region since then, or the million-odd Iraqis killed by the sanctions we enforced as an act of war before the second invasion.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 5, 2008 9:01 AM

That was the Gulf War, there, Robert. The Iraq War strated in 2003...remember, the AUMF vote Hillary voted for? That's when it started. Nice try, though.

And the Gulf War was Operation Desert Storm and the Iraq War is Operation Iraqi Freedom...If you don't believe check with, well, me, I was in the military then and I was quite aware of the difference.

Posted by drosz | February 5, 2008 9:24 AM

One war, two battles. Overlord and Torch were, among others, in the same war. Just because Congress chose to do a series of Resolutions rather than on declaration of war was unfortunate, but doesn't change the facts. We went to war in 1991, and have spent all the years since conducting some kind of offensive operations over, under, around and through Iraq. I know, I was in the military then too.

If you think there was peace in between, show me the peace treaty. We may get one soon, in the form of a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 8, 2008 8:26 AM

Nobody?

Comments (92)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories