Iraq as Metaphor

All issues are equal, but some issues are more equal than others. Those more equal give an insight into decision making, leadership style, and even character. Anyone who has served in office is familiar with the question, "Why did he/she do that?," meaning why did that politician do what they did? It is a question impossible to answer, that is without having some divine access to the inner recesses of an individual's mind or even soul.

Great decisions, however, can reveal how future great decisions might be made. No decision since the so-called Gulf of Tonkin resolution in Vietnam is more important than the vote on the 2002 war resolution on Iraq. Unlike health care, economic stimulus, immigration, and a host of other concerns, on that question there is clear difference between the Democratic finalists.

For those in the process of deciding between them for super Tuesday and beyond, they should be urged to consider this question very seriously. Those who decided to grant George W. Bush virtually unilateral authority to invade Iraq now must accept responsibility for its consequences. Votes have consequences. The consequences in Iraq are well over 30,000 American casualties [casualty: killed and wounded], possibly one million Iraqi deaths, and at least a trillion American tax dollars spent on restructuring (much wasteful and corrupted) and not spent on U.S. schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.

On issues such as this, it is not enough to say, We all make mistakes. One of the remaining candidates cannot even bring herself to say that. Why not, at least, say, "The president misled me"? Given how tragically wrong that vote was, such an admission would be at the very least a signal of humility, responsibility, wisdom, and character.

Consider these two questions when deciding how to vote on Tuesday and beyond: Why did Senator Clinton give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq; and why can she not bring herself to admit she was wrong? Regarding the first, she now says that she was only authorizing war as a last resort. Others who voted as she did and now admit error, including Senators Biden, Dodd, and Edwards, do not make that argument. They admit they were wrong. As to the second question, the plausible excuses are few: she still thinks it was right; she thinks the operation was mismanaged; she clings to the hope that this vote and continued support for it will serve her well with conservatives in a general election; she believes it is a symbol of "strength."

Sorting through a great deal of obfuscation, Senator Clinton still seems to cling to the argument that Bush mismanaged the whole project, that it was worth doing but it was done badly. Thus, she seems to accept unilateral invasion as a first resort, even when intelligence, as it was in this case, is less than clear. She seems to be willing to follow policy makers, in this case neocons, who had a publicly announced imperial agenda in the Middle East. And she permits the impression to grow that "triangulation," in matters of war, requires placing protection of political career over protection of the national interest.

Throughout my life I have tried consistently to avoid being judgmental regarding the motives of others. But, like Senator Obama, even on the sidelines, even without access to classified briefings, even under the war drum beat of the right, and even with a compliant mainstream media, I knew both in my mind and deep in my soul that invasion of Iraq was wrong, that it would lead to semi-permanent occupation, that the war would only just begin when Baghdad fell, and that we were pouring blood and treasure into the sand.

"Triangulation" and "centrism" may have led to eight years of a Democratic presidency in the 1990s. But it also blurred the principles of the Democratic party. It led young politicians to believe that the safest course was in some vague middle ground. And, tragically, it led too many Democrats to believe they had to prove their national security credentials by voting for any military misadventure right wing hawks could think up.

This nation needs a president who will question the conventional wisdom, who will exercise skepticism concerning foreign entanglements, who will have the courage to resist pressure from the narrow-minded bellicose right, who will admit to error when major mistakes are made, and who can look farther over the horizon than most of us. Most of all, we need a president who can restore America's honor, respect, and moral authority in the world.

That president is not Senator Clinton. That president is Barack Obama.

Comments

[blastocyst]

I didn't see Senator Barack 'the Hero of the Caucuses' Obama do anything but hit the ground in a dead run chasing down the Iraq 'War' funding bandwagon. All aboard!

[boltaflex]

The votes Hillary has made since her election to senator have been carefully designed to get her into the White House. Her policies have migrated from markedly left wing, straight into the middle on almost every issue. When the country was being maneuvered into Iraq, the moderates were mostly for it, and Clinton wants their approval. So she voted with them.
Many in the middle are still in denial about their lapse in judgement or weakness of spirit in the face of fear. This is human nature--I might hate being overweight, complain and keep promising to do something about it. But when someone asks me how I got this way. I'll give thirty excuses---it's my workplace, my upbringing, my arthritis, my metabolism, this diet has terrible food. Clinton is capitalizing on the wounded ego of a proud nation that made a serious mistake.
Is she a great politician? Yes.
Will I vote for her? No.
Obama will get my support.

[DennyCrane]

Thank you so much for posting this, Mr. Hart. Senator Clinton's vote is reason enough to disqualify her from being President. Anyone who makes such a huge foreign policy blunder has no business being the commander-in-chief. It amazes me how so many people are willing to give Senator Clinton a pass on this. Her vote reflects the kind of President she will be. One who makes decisions based on what's politically safe for her, one who worries about being labeled weak on national security, and one who makes up her mind before reading national intelligence reports. That's not a strong leader. That's the weakest and worst kind.

[villastrangiato]

Clinton's support of the imperialistic Kyle-Lieberman amendment was a deal breaker for me. If there was any doubt of her allegiance to Joe Lieberman and the Arab hating war monger members of AIPAC - it was obliterated on that day. Whether she is simply placating these radical groups in her back yard in a desperate attempt to pander for votes or whether she would actually incite war with Iran, this country cannot afford to take that chance. It is going bankrupt from being bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq - taking on Iran would most certainly send us down the crapper financially. And this says absolutely nothing about the human toll and the likely negative impact on the security of Americans both at home and abroad. We have no business stirring up another hornet's nest in the Middle East when our northern and southern borders are still leaking like sieves - to say nothing about the moral, ethical, or legal challenge to such a policy.

[ChimpmasterDJ]

"Why did Senator Clinton give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq; and why can she not bring herself to admit she was wrong? Regarding the first, she now says that she was only authorizing war as a last resort."

Well, the issue of the President's more than probable misuse of the War Authorization was directly addressed by the Levin Amendment. Hillary praised the Levin Amendment, only moments before voting against it.

Her relatively recent answer, when finally asked why she voted against the Levin Amendment, leads any sentient reader to conclude that either:

1] She's a bald-faced liar; or

2] She is incompetent to be President, as she doesn't have the reading comprehension necessary to understand what was and wasn't in the Levin Amendment.

Whether you choose 1 or 2, I can't see how you can vote for her, unless - of course - you're not a "sentient" reader.

[lastams]

How about hearing this from either candidate.
We are not supporting a democracy in Iraq bravely fighting AlQaeda and Iran. We are supplying dozens and dozens of armed groups in a sectarian standoff.
Our good buddies the Saudis are supplying men and money both to the insurgency in Iraq and allowing millions to be sent to AlQaeda, the real one in Pakastan.
When either of these candidates begin to bring a little reality into the debate, then I'll begin to listen.
So far, I've heard nothing but fairy tales and
nonsense.

[KevinMicheal]

It is so funny that some people claim Barack Obama was acting as a Monday Morning Quarterback in speaking out against the war. Barack was at anti-war rally October 2002 speaking against the war when he had everything on the line. He was an elected official that was speaking out against the war when people that spoke out against the war were being called unpatriotic traitors (just ask the Dixie Chicks what happened to them after they spoke out). Hillary had the opportunity to be on the right side of history and she screwed up. Now she can't bring herself to admit she made a mistake. I can't believe how many so-called liberals are trying to make excuses for her.

[vsign]

The internet is giving Barack Obama too much influence.
I think the new technologies are propelling an unproven and unprepared candidate to leadership on the world stage. As voters we need to be smarter. I compare it to germany when the new technologies of the microphone, radio, film propelled a man to the world stage because the people thought they could win with him. Be very careful of unintended consequences.

[dykalg]

The Clinton vote to authorize military invasion of Iraq can at least be rationalized in the context of the mood of the people of New York post 9/11. It´s a weak rationale in light of her failure to read the classified evidence and to weigh and balance Bush´s credibility. BUT the recent vote to classify the Iranian republican guard as a terrorist organisation can only be seen as a "signal" to the neo-con Bush base that she will be compliant to their foreign policy goals. Bush-lite. No thankyou.

[mohixx]

Everyone seems to forget that there were 21 Democratic senators who voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Apparently they were not misled by GWB. Clearly it was not a bi-partisan vote. There was 1 Republican and 1 Independant who voted no. See how your Senator voted.

Below is a link to the Senate vote by Senator-
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[lifeinfullcolor]

Sometimes we have to vote our conscience, not just those who we've elected, but we ourselves. When I heard Michael Moore say, he morally couldnot justify voting for Clinton, because of her vote on Iraq, I recalled myself expressing that same sentiment to one of my represenatives. I fought to get the Boland Ammendment re-instated, having gone to Nicaragua, met and seen the people. I included in a letter, a photo of a happy Nicaraguan child, saying if he didn't vote to re-instate the ammendment, morally I couldn't vote for him! I did not want the death of this child on my conscience, I had a choice.

[jerseypal]

Hillary voted to defend America. She needs to start saying that over and over, as well as the corrolary, namely Barrack, as he has often said, would not have taken the responsibility to do so, if you take him at is word. Prepare yourselves to hear Senator McCain make that very point a couple of thousand times in the fall, those of you who buy Obama's nonsense about not being questioned in the fall about a vote to go to war. I can already hear McCain saying Obama voted to give Ahmadinajad the benefit of the doubt in Iran, as opposed to supporting the American President in time of war. Oops, Obama missed that vote, kinda slack for a Law Review man. Hillary needs to start pounding this guy from the right, or it's President McCain, and John Bolton Secretary of State in your future, watch out!

[planetclaire4]

Obama did NOT question the "conventional wisdom" of Cheney/Hadley's intel (of all intel NOT to question!) when he co-wrote and co-sponsored S.970 designating the IRG as "terrorist­." (Would you not think, Gary, that a former constitutional law professor would want to use "terrorist" as it is defined, NOT state-sponsored?) I applauded Obama's "naivety" when he said during the debates he would unconditionally open channels to Syria and Iran, but it turns out he preferred to open channels to Cheney and Hadley by validating what, with very little study, he should have realized was a strawman. True that S.970 was less egregious than Kyl-Lieberman, but if he can't study details, why delve into foreign policy at all? Surely the Bush administration has raped the constitution in myriad ways for him to have an array of causes to pursue in line with his field, constitutional law. He might have cut a brave and brilliant swath in the Senate by doing so--and benefited the country. Instead he merely messed around to no good purpose. Yes, he was completely correct on the invasion--I guess he got lucky once, but his judgment elsewhere in foreign affairs (and the environmen­tal--liqui­d coal indeed!) isn't anything to brag about.

[LDW]

HRC decided, as did many people, that the Bush administration had credible evidence that Saddam Hussein was thwarting the UN weapons inspection teams because he had something to hide. She voted as did, making clear that she was not voting for any preemptive strike, in order to give the President a strong hand at the UN to ensure tough sanctions against Saddam and to show that Americans were resolute in their determination to keep Saddam from having weapons of mass destruction.
Most people, including people and pundits who despised Dubya and his cronies, did not suspect that Dubya and his gang of criminals was already planning the invasion and merely looking for a pretext.
Go and have a look for yourself and let Hillary Clinton speak for herself.
Read or watch her speech before the Iraq vote:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Or, watch the whole speech on YouTube:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8fknhbB-Xo&feature=related

[TrustMeImASalesman]

Gary, your metaphor is???? The decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was the same kind of error as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, is that your point?

Gary, let's look at the facts about these decisions. Gulf of Tonkin: Vietnam was in war for 22years BEFORE the North Vietnamese attack the US Navy Ships. We were already supporting the Diem regime with personnel, weapons, advisors, Green Berets etc...! We knew all about the Communist onslaught! The French ran like they did from the Germans in WWII.

Hillary was along side her husband and read/under­stood/clea­red to read some of the most sensitive intelligence about Iraq for 8 years. She knew, what Bill knew and What Saddam was up to! She knew possibly more about Iraq that President Bush did at the time! She lived with Iraq and Bill, remember?

The metaphor is about the Democratic party leaders Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, bashing the USA armed forces for the last 25 years. They demanded that America withdraw from Vietnam and now Iraq just before our victory there! They are still calling our soldiers, murders, thugs, etc. This is the metaphor! This metaphor is the shame of the DNC. A very sad metaphor.

Hillary at least had the strength to vote with courage, not like a cowards like Kerry, Kennedy, and Obama! She knew the facts and now wants to deny these and protect Bill's legacy! What legacy you ask? He bombed Afhganistan to destroy a dairy production facility. He bombed Saddam for trying to kill President Bush SR on a visit to the middle east. Bill bombed Serbia, Kosovo, Croiatia that were fighting Muslim fanatics! Hmmmmm? Maybe Hillary was right in the votes. She's not a coward!
We veterans do not forget who runs and who insults our effort to win!