Clinton, McCain Spar Over Iraq Future

*** UPDATES BELOW ***

Sen. Clinton delivered a speech today on ending the war in Iraq. While she offered a few jabs at her Democratic opponent (as well as Sinbad the comedian), she saved her harshest words for President Bush and Republican nominee John McCain.

Clinton recalled McCain's statements about staying in Iraq for 100 years, saying, "withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years."

Read an excerpt:

Despite the evidence, President Bush is determined to continue his failed policy in Iraq until he leaves office. And Senator McCain will gladly accept the torch and stay the course, keeping troops in Iraq for up to 100 years if necessary.

They both want to keep us tied to another country's civil war, a war we cannot win. That in a nutshell is the Bush/McCain Iraq policy. Don't learn from your mistakes, repeat them. Well, here is the inescapable reality. We can have hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground for 100 years, but that will not change the fact that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq....

...Senator McCain and President Bush claim withdrawal is defeat. Well, let's be clear, withdrawal is not defeat. Defeat is keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. Defeat is straining our alliances and losing our standing in the world. Defeat is draining our resources and diverting attention from our key interests.

Continue reading the speech here.

Meanwhile, the McCain camp responds:

At a time when Senator Clinton knows that American and allied forces are making real progress in Iraq, it is unfortunate that she would look to score political points by mischaracterizing Senator McCain's statement with intellectually dishonest attacks. The differences between Senator McCain's position, that we must win this war, and Senator Clinton's position, withdrawal and de facto surrender on day one, are important enough to have an honest debate over.

Story continues below

advertisement

It would be the height of irresponsibility to stick with campaign promises to the left-wing of the Democratic Party and proceed with withdrawal regardless of what the situation is on the ground in Iraq in January 2009.

UPDATE: The Obama camp has jumped into the fray, providing a timeline of Sen. Clinton's inaction on the issue of private contractors in the military:

"Proving once again that she will say anything to win an election, Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama on an issue where he has led and she did nothing until her campaign fell behind. Senator Clinton did nothing when the use of contractors was expanded in the Clinton Administration, she did nothing when Senator Obama sent a bill on contractor accountability to her committee, and after more than four years of war in Iraq she claimed to not even know contractors were unaccountable even though she sits on the Senate committee that oversees them. For all her talk of Day One, it took five years on the Armed Services Committee before Hillary Clinton decided that she was shocked to learn about contractors that were used by the Clinton Administration, and whose abuses were reported year after year after year during the Iraq War," said Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer.

Continue reading the memo here.

UPDATE: McCain has continued his response to Clinton on CNN:

Well, all I can say is that she obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told General Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

UPDATE: Obama has offered a passing shot at Clinton's argument that he is just words, saying of her Iraq vote:

"I am not about to let Senator Clinton get away with saying this is just about speeches," he said, citing the human and financial cost of the war.

"Because of that vote, our troops have fought tour after tour after tour of duty," he said. "Because of that vote we are less safe..."

UPDATE: The Obama camp has launched a web video attacking Clinton's experience and judgment in voting for the Iraq War resolution:

Comments

[speakingtruth2power]

The McCain camp statement about all the progress in Iraq that we are ignoring is pure Bushit!!!

It is disingenuous and meant for the consumption of the gullible and willfully ignorant, 27%'ers.

[goodsnservices]

I wish this video had used a part of the clip from that 2002 speech in which Hillary gave the rationale for going to war with Iraq, Bill Clinton's adoption of the strategy of "regime change." It is "absolutely unfair" (to use Hillary's own words) to allow her to continue to claim that this was a vote for increased inspections, when she clearly stated that war with Iraq was in the cards under the policy of regime change. Clearly, she supported WAR with her vote, despite her caveats. She and Bush truly are two of a kind.

[marthlois]

Let's see - how can I put this?
WE WANT THE TAX RECORDS - THE WHITE HOUSE RECORDS - THE CONTRIBUTORS TO ALL!
AND, WHILE I'M AT IT: Let's talk about Hillary going to trial. It's true!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

[PhxMike]

JUDGMENT ARGUMENT NOW LUDICROUS ---

Obama's superior judgment argument was working as long as the media was able to keep the Rezko, Wright, Excelon, and Ayers scandals under wraps. Oh, and by the way, most people now know that Obama's speech against the war had nothing to do with making a judgment because he was not in the senate at the time and had no access to any intelligence evidence on which to make a judgment.

Oh, yeah -- and when he did get to the senate he told reporters he didn't know how he would have voted it he had seen the evidence, and did not speak out aggressively against the war again until AFTER he started running for President.

What is obvious is that this judgment argument was never designed to stand up under the scrutiny of months of campaigning, and he'd better get on to a more advanced argument or he's going to lose the rest of these contests bigtime.

[Freemind42]

It doesn't matter much if Obama loses these next contests. The only way Clinton can win is by resorting to Rovian tactics (see Florida and Michigan) or "Suspending the Disbelief" of the party bosses to overturn the previous elections.

[rojo7449]

Obama needs to shut up on this subject, and many others. He gave subsequent talks (I remember clearly at least one clip on tv of one of his comments) after he went into the Senate that he was wrong in his doubts about the war and supported Bush's running of the war. HE WASN'T THERE, WASN'T PRIVY to what was being said inside the real Senate and can't possibly speak to what he WOULD have done when he, himself, is void of the surrounding facts that lead MANY democrats to vote in favor.

When he had the chance to PROVE to us he would NOT support Bush wars, he failed to show up for the vote on IRAN. Oh, and when you all start screaming about Hillary's vote for IRAN, do your research first and see all the democrats who did cast a YEA vote on that one....the list includes Ted Kennedy, and many other Obama endorsements. If that had actually been a vote to allow Bush to invade Iran, you can bet it would have happened long before now. The problem, Obama DIDN'T THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO EVEN VOTE.

But, let's be completely realistic. We are in Iraq. We've been there for 5 years. Had Hillary voted NO, we would still be in Iraq. That's history, and it's Bush's administration. I want to know what the Obama administration absolutely plans to do about the Middle East. All of it, not just Iraq. I don't need specifics of the plan, but I'd sure like to hear what steps will be taken in formulating a plan. If he starts giving timelines and absolutes, I'll tune him out. What will he look at in current circumstances, possible scenarios, consequences, and outcomes. Obama is not in the Bush inner-circle, he doesn't know what agreements have been made, or who the government players are over there. He hasn't been on the job enough to know much of anything about any part of our countries current conditions.

[FreedomLoverX]

Obama should shut up? This clip is exclusively Hillary!

Thanks for a war that has left 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis DEAD Hillary! Thanks for LYING in public about it, Hillary! Thanks for spending so much of the money you have taken from special interests on a SMEAR campaign, Hillary! Thanks for bringing us closer to war in Iran, Hillary! And thanks for keeping your shills active on the blogs.

[mutatio]

Actually, I bet Obama saw it as incredibly important to not vote on Kyl-Lieberman. His co-sponsored bill of "Counter-P­roliferati­on Act of 2007" actually labeled the IRG as a terrorist organization as well. He likely skipped the vote on Kyl-Lieberman to try and embellish his narrative of Clinton being a war-monger. Very lame of Obama. Guess who described Obama's bill as undermining diplomatic efforts with Iran? (This is the very same argument Obama has tried to lay at Clinton's feet.) It was Kucinich. I'm guessing the Obama fans aren't aware of that.

[BOfever]

It's kind of cute that Mrs. Clinton can talk about Iraq from a nice cozy place while McCain is actually in Iraq currently.

[englishprof]

It really is time that Dean summoned up the moxie to dismiss the Clintons. They are a disgrace and will drag the party down.

[HumeSkeptic]

Had either Hillary or McCain been C-in-C in 2001 instead of Bush, we would still be in Iraq. No difference.

Had Obama been the C-in-C, we wouldn’t be in Iraq.

That’s the difference.

Instead, Obama would have focussed on going after the thugs who did us harm. They wouldn’t have the safe haven they have in Waziristan. And, through combination of diplomacy and intelligent use of force, Obama would have built upon the goodwill of the world we had on 9/12.

That’s the difference.

To those supporting Hillary: Haven’t you had enough of NeoCon policies? Haven’t you had enough of death and destruction? How can you possibly choose Hillary over Obama. For heaven’s sake, wake up.

[whichchange]

I see that Obama is playing the old-style politics of misrepresenation:

Hillary in 2002:
.

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. .

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

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.

[HumeSkeptic]

All that is spin. Everone knew what that Iraq war authorization vote was for. Answere these, especially (3), which pretty much negates all what you said because she did it again:


1. Why did Hillary side with the NeoCons on Iraq war authorization?

2. Why did Hillary oppose Levin Amendment?

3. Why did Hillary support Kyl/Lieberman Amendment?

Anyone wants to take a shot at answering those questions for us? Or her consistent support for NeoCons policies is no longer an issue for those who claim to be against this war, and against the NeoCons?

How do you deal with your conscience if you have chosen Hillary over Obama?

How?

Does the human suffering in Iraq mean nothing to you anymore? How do you justify destroying a whole country that never did us any harm?

How?

Remember, Hillary has supported this NeoCon carnage every step of the way. Consistently.

[buddhistMonkey]

So, have it your way. Hillary was duped by the Bush Administration. That still illustrates profoundly bad judgment.

[anthonylee]

Yeah . . . . all of that and whatever . . . . . ,

Hillary is quoted as saying (2002) just before her vote: "If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. ..."

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

"And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed. "

Sounds like she knew where we were her "vote" would lead us . . . .

[joselopez]

Clinton.Ke­rry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, all voted for the Iraq War because they were going to be running for President and did not want to look weak on defense, if the War actually turned out well. That is the bottom line. For her to say it was a vote for Inspectors, just shows the Clinton's would say or do what ever it takes.

I work at an office where even the maintenance guy (true story, we discussed the issue frequently during the run up) knew it was a vote for War. So for her to say it was a vote for Inspectors, just proves she is a flat out liar!!!

[joselopez]

CAN SOMEONE ASK CLINTON THIS QUESTION:

IF YOU WERE VOTING FOR INSPECTORS AS YOU TOLD RUSSERT, WHY THEN WOULD THE VOTE BE A DIFFICULT ONE?

[HumeSkeptic]

I, for one, have not forgotten that cold day in New York City when we marched hand in hand to try and stop the then impending invasion of Iraq.

We begged Hillary then. We sent her letters, we emailed, we called her office. Thousands of us. We begged her to please not side with the NeoCons.

Hillary gave us the finger.

The results of that colossal mistake are there for all to see. Hundreds of thousand have died and millions are homeless in Iraq. And the carnage continues.

Recently, for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, we begged Hillary again to please not side with the NeoCons. And she ignored us, again.

There is no way I can forgive Hillary for that. She made the choice to side with the NeoCons. Let her go beg the NeoCons for votes.

Sure, Iraq war is Bush’s war. But Hillary supported him. She sided with the NeoCons.

[BOfever]

John Edwards sided with the Neocons and 75% of Americans are in that boat too . . .

[ginnypoo]

Didn't Obama withdraw from the race yet?

[JavaCityGal]

Only in your dreams.

[DavidK08]

You must be embarrased by this post. It isn't even intelegent. Last time I checked Hillary is only leading him in....NOTH­ING!

[nazgul]

In linguistics, there is a concept called a SPEECH ACT. Speech acts can be promising, accusing, bequeathing, etc.

When Clinton voted to give Bush the right to go to war with Iraq she also made a speech act. She clearly preferred renewed inspections and negotiations. She clearly was opposed to pre-emptive war. However, she voted give Bush free reign to deal with Iraq, knowing full well, as we all did since 9/11, that he was intent on invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. In her speech, she said, in effect: Saddam poses a serious, imminent threat and he has supported al Qaeda, and he must be removed, even if that requires War.

Hillary Clinton's SPEECH ACT was thus to APPROVE and SUPPORT both the Bush administration worldview of Hussein AND its right to pursue any and all means to deal with him, at its discretion.

Hillary has since attempted to rewrite history, claiming that she was voting to approve negotiations. That's nothing less than a lie. She had a chance to limit the scope of Bush's actions with the Levin Amendment. She specifically chose to give Bush free reign.

Barack Obama, on the other committed his own speech act. He INFORMED people that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat . He REMINDED people of the reasons given during the Gulf War for not invading and occupying Iraq. He WARNED that such an invasion and occupation would increase, not decrease, terrorism. He PROMOTED a focused campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda. He PROMOTED a constructive Homeland Security program (not color-coded security alerts). He AFFIRMED the thoughts and feelings of those who knew, based on the information already available, that the War was misguided in every war imaginable.

Obama's speech performed several ACTIONS.


Running for the IL Senate, Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out against the War at a time when such people were vilified by the administration, the hawk-stacked choirs of media pundits and the right-wing talk radio hosts. It was the opposite of opportunism.

Imagine if Hillary, as the celebrity Senator she is, spoke the words that Obama did. She would be having an entirely different campaign. Imagine if a few other dozen Senators and Congresspeople spoke what they knew to be true. It might an entirely different country. By ceding, as she and so many others did, to the power lords of false patriotism and seeking political cover, she has suffered. And so have we.

[estreya]

So you're saying her war votes have been like her bankruptcy vote? She votes for them, but is glad when they're not passed?

[JudgeCrater]

Heck, Iraq just gets McCain started as far as war goes.

John McCain’s War Cabinet
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/

Great, more wars we can't afford and the economic situation continues head South. Gee, why didn't Hoover think of this? Oh, wait, that's right, he was a better President than Bush is or McCain will be if we're stupid enough to elect him.

[BoulderSue]

I'm just glad to see her aiming most of her ammunition in the right direction. And I am glad that the wars are an issue again. This is John McCain's soft spot, justifiably so, or at least one of his largest. As long as Barack and Hillary keep aiming in the same direction, one of them will almost surely win the White House and all that goes with it: more Dems in Congress and more moderates to progressives in the courts, and hopefully a rapid, rational end to our involvement in Iraq and a move toward the real enemy congregated on the Afghani-Pakistani border.

[itsnotmyfault]

While it is true that Obama gave a definitive position speech opposing the Iraq war, the question of judgment is larger than simply taking a position which has turned out correct. When Barack gave his Iraq antiwar speech he was a state senator who had no security clearance. He did not get National security briefs, did not read the security documents supplied to Congress nor was he privy to the briefing info that drove Secretary Powell to testify as he did at the UN. I mention Powell not because he is black but because at that time he was the only one in the administration that had any credibility. Powell was convinced, I believe sincerely, that Saddam had reconstituted his weapons program and sought a nuclear program as well.

The concept of the Clinton's affirming vote, based on her speech accompanying the vote, was to use the lever of the threat of war to restart thorough inspections through the UN. She also indicated she was taking Bush at his word to allow inspections to take their full course and that war was a last option. That was clearly not Bush's intent. But a Senator cannot base their vote on the question of the veracity of the chief executive.

The real question is how do you assess good judgment? Is it really good judgment if Barack Obama came to his conclusions based on none of the briefing info? His speech turned out to be correct but it was not based on the data that was deemed accurate at the time. What if all of the Bush evidence regarding Saddam Hussein was true and Saddam had ambitions to build and deliver weapons to bin Laden? Should the US have encroached on Iraq's sovereignty to intervene just as Barack had suggested regarding Pakistan and the pursuit of terrorists?

Is it really good judgment if its based on half of the available information? It sounds more like Bush's divine attribution strategy rather than the type of judgment that is based on a comprehensive familiarity with all of the facts. Again the speech was correct. The judgment was what took place before the speech. How can it be deemed good judgment if it is not based on all of the available info?

Some clarity about this issue would serve Hillary Clinton well. Reminding the electorate about her position as she laid it out in her speech. Enforce thorough weapons inspections sanctioned by the UN. Demonstrate a non partisan support of the Presidency, to aid in the execution of policy which if seen through to its appropriate conclusion would have avoided war and strengthened the Presidency (not Bush but the office of the President) around the world. Protect and defend the US from a threat, which turned out to be a fiction manufactured by the Bush administration. Giving a President the leverage of the threat of war in order to effect inspections which should have avoided conflict and brought a sense of security to a nation, still suffering the effects of 9/11, is not a wrong vote.

Taking a position on issues that directly effect our National security without having access to any of the secured information made available to Congress is reckless judgment, not good judgment.

[unsolved999]

On the other hand. The people in the Senate did have the information. Apparently the NIE had qualifications about it's conclusions that were plain to anyone reading them. And they all made the wrong decision (as we know in hindsight). However, there were actually quite a few people who saw the drawbacks to invading. Doonesbury for example.

It still does not justify a vote that in the end was made out of political fear, rather than any kind of rational review of the facts.

I think the salient point to be made from the clip is when Clinton states that she made her vote out of conviction, backed by her "experience" of 8 years in the White House. That is the take away...