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
Senator Hart,
Should a US Senator vote their mind or the will of their constituency? My guess is that her constituency was strongly in favor of war.
Remember the thirst for revenge at the time? A thirst that the insufficiently "target rich" Afghanistan bomb party failed to quench.
No, the race with Obama is too close. To admit
error at this point is to demonstrate failure of judgement. Just not going to happen.
What did she not know that me, common of mortals, knew...?
She has had many years of experience as a Senator and should have taken the responsibility to educate herself on the subject while so many lives were at stake on either side!
We are borrowing money from the Chinese to finance this catastrophy! We would not be in that part of the World if it weren't for the Oil!
I have never received a reply to my question:
In President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq after the 911 disaster, what would you have done?
Look, Gary, she didn't think she was wrong at that time. Neither did Bush. Hillary said in a recent interview that the thinking in congress as well as the presidency [clinton apparently agreed] was that it was just a matter of time before Saddam tried to make a name for himself in competition with Osama Bin Laden.
The problem now is that the wholesale uprising that was supposed to happen hasn't, except in civil war. Go figure. Guess all of those years of eliminating human intelligence in Bill's reign didn't pay off so well.
This post ignores that you all are as guilty as you all are responsible for voting the guy in. Not just once but twice. As a Brit arriving here right after 9/11 I saw first hand the hawkishness that prevailed then and most of you are too busy making a buck or keeping up with the Jones's to care WHO got a smack in the mouth from you. It was treasonable to NOT comply with the Commander in Chief. You must ALL take the blame as really ALL Germans had to take the blame for the Holocaust. That is the past. Go on and learn from it. There was no holocaust but there was suffering beyond reason. Make reperarations and clear out and make peace for a while. The World will soon forget. The waste can soon become a non issue. Imagine the better world for poor Americans with health and housing a priority instead of munitions. It would not matter who of the Democratic Nominees headed up because they both broker change and change is what is required. I know of kindly people who still do not know what was done wrong in their name. It would take them a bunch of research to understand and they are too busy with other things. Many are on a treadmill that keeps them at heel. They are sure that we are winning? They d not understand that more hatred exists for American Policy now than ever did at the time of 9/11. Bush has galvanized Muslims around the world to hate the intervention in the Middle East. Internet no longer lets the world be in the dark. We see the brutality carried out in our name and by our allies? Go Figure.
The problem we face, with whoever is chosen to carry the Democratic banner, is which one of the two is the most electable against the Republican opponent. Hillary will be trashed from day one and everything from her husbands infidelity to the Vince Foster suicide will be thrown at her. She is either loved or hated. Obama is not faced with that and he seems to have ignited a movement that most Americans can live with.
This election is supposed to be about change right? We want a change from the reckless ruthless random insenseless corruption of Bush et al.
Part of this change is in the positive politics that Obama claims is his quest. I agree with that principle. Don't forget the past but stop carrying it with you. Learn from it. Your article hangs on to this past in an attempt to Hillary bash and frankly this is so old that I am surprised you would even spend your time making this point.
Yes we are all angry at what happened how we got into this war and the aftermath of the horror of it. It is time to focus on getting out of there and not getting ourselves into the hundred years of war that John McCain thrillingly anticipates. The truth is that even now the Democrats cannot get it together enough to impeach Bush for obvious crimes against the constitution, the people and Congress itself.
You choose to focus your wrath on Hillary who we all know by now is an easy target. Only bullies pile on so I am surprised at your take on this. Anyway move on and let's make a unified Democratic party work to make sure the November election is a huge success.
because she was not wrong, for a change... The Hillary bashing by the left is as vitriolic as the McCain bashing from the right... Change , i will give you that but the change to Obama would be worse than the change to Jimmy Carter and you can't get worse than that
Everyone should consider that Hillary has had to misrepresent the Levin Amendment to the War Resolution in order to explain why she didn't vote for the Levin Amendment. Because of this we all should not trust or believe anything else she says to explain these votes.
For anyone to trust the Bush Administration and take their side over Levin while rushing us into a war is inexcusable and should disqualify her from holding office.
RJ Crane, topplebush
Gary Hart is not quite accurate in his comments. Hillary has claimed that Bush was the one who misused this authorization and that she was told the White House wouldn't do this. I probably have analyzed Hillary's problem with her war vote better than most people have and here is what seems to be the prevailing consensus supported by a new book coming out by former Sen. Chafee who correctly didn't vote for either the War Authorization but did correctly support the Levin amendment. 1. The Senate Dems who voted for this resolution and against the Levin amendment trusted Bush more than they trusted both Levin and other anti-war Dems who were arguing against a rush to pass this resolution. 2. Almost everyone in Washington knew this was a vote for war at the time, which is what Biden has stated clearly. 3. There were plenty of reasons the Dems shouldn't have trusted Bush or the White House because of the negative way they were being treated so being conned by Bush still reflects negatively on someone's judgment. 4. The Dems voting for the Use of Force Authorization didn't want to appear weak on defense going into a midterm election and were being encouraged to get this vote out of the way by Tom Daschle. 5. The Dems voting for this war were placing their bets that this war would go as well as the first Gulf War and gas would then be .90 per gallon. 6. There was enough controversy and doubts about the intelligence being used to sell the war if anyone had cared to ask to look at it like Chafee did but instead the Dems met with Bush and just came back accepting what they were being told.
It's very clear to me is that Hillary based her war vote on political calculations instead of what was best for the country fearing that if the war went well, she wouldn't look good when she ran for President despite what she claims now.
RJ Crane, topplebush
Looking back at it....you could even say her husband misled her.
Gary, if Obama's position has so much merit, why did he remove it from his website when the statues began to tumble? Also, when he DID come to Washington as an "agent of change," he funded the war at every single opportunity. Not once, despite each budget receiving OVERWHELMING support, did he vote consistent with his position..
If it had been the Sears Tower that was brought down, I'm sure Obama would have voted like Clinton did for her own home state. After all, he IS a politician at the end of the day.
I hope Obama chooses Gary Hart as his running mate. He couldn't hope for anyone more serious or more prescient on the issue of terrorism and foreign policy.
gary hart is right: the democrats knew Bush, and they
knew what kind of war Bush wanted and why--they
could spell and smell OIL AS WELL AS WE MERE CITIZENS.
THEY MUST NOW accept resonsibility for the war, or
go along on the McCain wagon that a "resonsible surrender" might do.
IT IS TIME for Ted Kennedy, Obama and Hillary and any Democrat with a D to say the war is failed, it lost
its purpose, it is effectively over, TIME TO GO. AND THEY WILL WIN on that--McCain's rhetoric of surrender will get the usual Hawk Right--but that's 22% and won't budge or amount to much this timel.
Goreman
Gary, I think that you are totally right and your critics dead wrong. There are two possible reasons why Hillary will not admit she was wrong on the Iraq vote. Either she believed the baloney about the weapons of mass destruction and swallowed all of the Bush lies about Iraq, in which case she is seriously lacking in intelligence and judgement; or, she is trying to show to neo-cons and the extreme right how tough she is rather than respecting majority opinion which is anti-war. Under either hypothesis it would be dangerous to have her as president.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
