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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You need to do your homework Mr. Hart. Hillary clinton has said over and over in the debates that Bush was mis-leading!
Bravo!
Yes Gary Hart,like many of us,you know which of the remaining Democrats could easily earn a degree at Machiavelli University. Let's hope others can as readily perceive Hillary's desire to make that school coed. To be sure she has carefully calculated the pros and cons of admitting she was wrong about supporting George Bush's Iraq attack. Her calculations must be rooted in a belief that she, like George Bush, also has the right to mislead the American people.
People who support Hillary Clinton did not, at the time, understand the terrible reality behind the rush to war in Iraq and astonishingly enough, after all these years, it's clear that they still don't.
With all due respect (and a lifelong admiration for Mr. Hart) I'd like to suggest that his analysis and differentiation of these candidates is terribly flawed. Anyone in the senate at that time had access to intelligence the "milling herd" (us) didn't. That the "extra" information the senators had was a lie poses an interesting dilemma. Both Clinton and Edwards were in a position to get ALL the intelligence relating to the situation in Iraq. Obama wasn't. As a result of this information, both Clinton and Edwards voted to give W the authority he was asking for. Obama, wasn't in a position to see the whole picture as promulgated by the Republicans and opposed the authorization. So Obama came to the right conclusion precisely because he wasn't privvy to the "facts" the administration wanted the legislators to have. I find it telling, however, that when Obama joined the senate, his votes and Clinton's have been the same. I'm thinking that if Obama had been presented with the same information both Edwards and Clinton had, he, too would've voted for the resolution.
In addition, I've followed John Edwards for a long time. I know he wouldn't have voted for the adminstration's bill unless the evidence indicated it was the only option available. That the evidence was a lie -- well, no one thought anyone would so abuse the power of his office as to lie to congress to gain that kind of advantage.
In other words, Obama was right simply because he wasn't there, not because he was "right on day one" as he would suggest.
Should Clinton admit voting for the resolution allowing W to unilaterally invade Iraq was a mistake? Sure. It hurts her far less than standing on principle. Perhaps a better question is why Mr. Obama hasn't addressed the high probability that had he been in the same position as Clinton and Edwards, he probably would've voted the same way. Sometimes it's nice to hear people recognize that they've been fortunate, through no fault of their own.
While I agree with some of the premises of Mr. Hart, to say that an untested Obama is the person to lead us out of this messes doesn't necessarily follow the argument. The issue at the time of the vote, and I firmly believe this, was to use the vote as a firm warning. I do not believe for one minute that Senator Clinton gave permission for an invasion.
Frankly, what worries me is Obama's sit back and take it all in tact. He's not decisive. While pretty words can be inspiring, they do not a leader make.
I'm not completely happy with either of the two remaining Democratic candidates.
I'm troubled by Barrack's lack of specifics when he talks about "change". He seems to exhibit a degree of naivete when he talks about sitting down with those same people that have been driving us into the ground and reaching a satisfactory consensus. I also believe that his medical plan is lacking in not providing coverage for all.
I do not trust Hillary, whom I consider to be the ultimate Washington insider and triangulator. She is too indebted to the corporate political contributers and power brokers.
My first preference was Al Gore but he made it clear that he would not consider running. I then went on to support John Edwards until he suspended his campaign.
One thing that I'm certain of is that either Hillary or Barrack will be far better in the White House than any of those Repugnant clowns running for the presidency so I'll vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
While this is a thoughtful blog, one important concept is left out.
The trillion $ that was spent was borrowed. This decreases the value of the dollar making inflation a problem for all of us, but some more than others.
If there was a drum for the democrats to beat, it should be that this administration has been the cause of a huge downward shift in our quality of life through inflation.
Better to have faith in a rookie who has an unknown batting average? 'cause he makes the fans cheer, is no need to pinch hit for Clinton during an already won game. The error by the center-fielder at the beginning of this game is of no consequence. Just as many dead. Obama the eloquent speaker has had a vote and has not used it well either, has had a voice and has not spoken at every turn against this war, instead has supported its continuance. Is he the rookie, or the cheerleader? Bush was a cheerleader too!
Another voice in the wilderness heard from! Where have you been since you lost your try for the big office seat in 84 and…88? Just who do you consult on matters of National Security any way? I’m bored with this voting issue.
Obama said “yes” to the appropriations bill for continued defense spending in Iraq…so did Hillary. Obama has always said “yes” to continued spending in Iraq.
Do we make an inference based on voting action? If Obama was so opposed to the war why not continually vote against anything related to the war? I guess it might be because once on the inside it’s not so easy to vote no on such matters. He could have done what he normally does on issues that prove too controversial and just not vote…but he voted “yes.”
I think actions speak louder than words. It could be that Obama will pull this off and win it. In which case we get what we asked for, but I am wondering what we are basing our decision on? Clever Obama comparisons to JFK, the quick sound bites of how progressive, innovative and inspiring he is? We have given him single handed glory for raising the conscience of American youth who have woken up to this election process as if by some magical wave of his youthful culturally diverse hand.
I have teens and they are usually self-centered about everything in their lives but they understand the urgency of this election not because there is a woman or man of color waiting in the wings but because they know they are responsible for their future now that they can vote. They understand what it means to have friends and relatives stationed and fighting in Iraq. Why going to the college of their choice will be a little more financially challenging. One supports Obama the other Clinton.
Obama is a man, not King Arthur or JFK. He is bright and intelligent. If he wins, I pray his idealism and enthusiasm he will not be diverted or defeated by the harsh realities of it all.
It's painful to watch the cuckoo left throw away another election, especially when the country is in so much trouble. So, Senator Clinton erred in her 2002 vote. So what? Senator Obama was ineffectual in his 2002 protest, made in the relative anonymity and safety of the Illinois legislature. (How many of today's bleating knew of it then?) So what?
This 2008 and 2009 is already bearing down on us. It's ironic the more Obama's fans talk of change, the more they want to talk about the past: 2002, in particular.
There's been a lot of chit chat about the new President's first day in office. Ready or right? Perhaps a better question is what about the hundreth day? Effective or well-meaning?
There is certainly a politics of admitting mistakes. I can muster a certain amount of respect for any oplitician that might go out on a limb and admit that there may have been a mistake in their voting history. I certainly have mistakes in mine.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/12/04/the-politics-of-admitting-mistakes/
We'll never know what Barack Obama would have done had he been eligible to vote on this issue. We do know his voting record since he's been in office is in lock step with Hillary Clinton's.
And we certainly know that as long as congress funds war, we'll have war.
There is one candidate who was eligible to vote against this fiasco, and who was under a considerable amount of pressure from his own party to do so.
Instead, as always, Ron Paul stood on principle, used the Constitution to guide him, and made a careful and deliberate decision based on the evidence. He then tried to talk some sense into the rest of our so-called "representatives," but few listened.
Only the voters can decide if principle and a 20 year record still amount to anything, or if we'll continue to elect people based on the American Idol principle.
Despite all indicators that the Idol principle will decide this election, not the least of which is Dennis Kucinich being cast aside for speaking the truth, I continue to hold out hope that Americans are strong enough to do some deeper analysis and come to their own conclusions.
Why Senator Clinton voted in favor of granting President Bush authorization to use force in Iraq is at this point irrelevant. What matters now is how she has handled the fact that her vote to grant authorization was a mistake. When Senator Edwards raised the issue by admitting that his vote to authorize the use of force had been a mistake, Senator Clinton followed the common wisdom of political strategists which said that in general, a female politician can never change her position and admit to having made a mistake because it will make her vulnerable to political opponents who will accuse her of being weak and indecisive. Sadly, Senator Clinton has continued to cling to her original position in hopes that the issue will eventually fade away. However, the issue is not going to fade away and the longer she clings to her failed strategy, the worse the political fallout will be if she ever changes her position. In fact, Senator Clinton has dealt with perhaps her greatest political mistake, her vote in favor of granting the authorization to use force in Iraq, in the same manner as President Bush has handled perhaps his greatest political mistake, which is the occupation of Iraq. Both continue to cling to a failed strategy making the same arguments long after it has become clear that they have made a mistake hoping that if they hold out just a little bit longer, the issue will be forgotten and everything will work itself out.
At this point it is up to the voters to decide whether they are going to continue to cling to a politician with a failed strategy, or admit to having made a mistake and switch their support to another candidate with a different strategy.
Gary Hart. You could start your effort here by speaking truth. "..possibly one million Iraqi deaths.." Perhaps that many died in Iraq duringt the Clinton era -- or so the Clinton administration seemed to support, but there is no authorative view with supports that number since the Iraq war started. Period.
By the way, the reason that Hillary stands where she does on the issue, is because Hillary and her husband Bill strongly believed what Bush led the country to believe before Bush even became president. It was the same information, by and large, that the Clinton administration had accepted, paraded, hyped as needed, and then passed on to the Bush administration. If you stop revising history, and deal with what was on the table, then we can get to the discussion.
Senator Obama was never privy to the information, or the inside view, that the Clinton's and the Bush's had and shared. He was never in a position to make an educated decision. His view, indeed may have been the correct on - but it did not come from the same place.
Edwards perhaps, is about the only national figure which has played this honorably - from his point of view. He went back to the Clinton administration team. He asked them if the intelligence supported what he was reading and being told, and they assured him that it was. He based his vote on that shared comprehensive understanding. His change of heart comes from a combination of what came to be found out later, and a new understanding of how difficult these things can be.
Perhaps the discussion to be had, as with Afghanistan and a number of other places with decades of international inaction which resulted in milions of deaths and untold human suffering, is that there were no other world leaders with a better idea and with the will to act, at this point in history, or in the decades that preceeded it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
