Hillary's Judgment Was Wrong About Iraq -- And It's Wrong About Iran

During the past months Senator Clinton has tried to portray herself as a most capable potential president who will be ready to spring into action on day one, somebody who can wake up at 3 a.m., pick up the red phone, and make extraordinary decisions based on her experience in dealing with national security issues. She has a variety of qualities when it comes to her experience, but is dealing with national security issues one of them? It doesn't seem so.

The idea of Clinton waking up at 3 a.m. and making an extraordinary decision -- probably on how to confront U.S. adversaries -- does not fit her experience, particularly on the two most crucial national security issues, if we can call them this: Iraq and Iran.

It does not need to be 3 a.m. to make a crucial decision. Clinton authorized the war with Iraq when she had enough time to think about the consequences of her decision for the United States and beyond. She was fully awake when deciding to launch a war that has taken the lives of hundred thousands of Iraqis and Americans and used up billion of dollars so far; a war that spread terrorism beyond Afghanistan's borders. No doubt there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the U.S.'s invasion in 2003.

But this crucial war authorization was not her only major wrong decision. She voted yes on a Sept. 2007 Senate resolution calling on the administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. This was a resolution sponsored by Republican Senator Kyle and co-sponsored by Senator McCain.

For those familiar with the national security issues and particularly U.S.-Iran relations, this was seen as the most aggressive step toward military action against Iran by the Bush administration. This resolution basically calls a part of Iran's official army a terrorist organization and makes it legitimate to confront them with force, making them a target in the vague undefined "war on terror."

At the time the resolution was passed, U.S. officials repeatedly accused Iranians of involvement in the rise of insurgency and IEDs in Iraq, but presented no solid evidence. This resolution was the outcome of the administration's long-time campaign to sway public opinion in favor of war, a trick to secure authorization for another military attack.

The Bush administration was not successful in continuing down its warmongering path only because this resolution was shortly followed by the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (PDF), which basically said that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon program. This had the effect of throwing cold water on the fire-breathing atmosphere created by the Pentagon and the hawkish part of the administration. The NIE changed opinion dramatically, both domestically and internationally, for the administration to use military force only as the last option against Iran. But the question is why, and based on what intelligence and analysis, did Clinton line up with neoconservatives in support of the resolution?

During the past days, she has blamed Senator Obama for "missing in action" when he "failed to show up for a vote dealing with Iran." Yet what Obama chose to do showed his superior sense of judgment on vital national security issues. I think these two examples are enough to illustrate why it scares me when I imagine the day Clinton wakes up at 3 a.m. wanting to make a decision on the most crucial of national security issues.

Sometimes when I listen to Clinton talk about her experience in national security, I think I am listening to Madeline Albright, secretary of state during her husband's administration. To make her resume long and heavy might grab attention in TV ads but does not work in action at 3 a.m. In politics, it really does not matter how many years somebody has occupied a seat in Congress, in the Senate or in the White House. Politics is a sphere of moments and right judgments, and there are many politicians who have lost their credibility, not over their long life service to their country, but for the few wrong decisions they have made in crucial times.

It doesn't matter it is 3 a.m. or 5 p.m., what matters is the right judgment at the right time.

Comments

[semorg]

Hillary might be strong but she will constantly second guess herself about coming across too weak. Not something the country can afford.

[Durango]

I can forgive Hillary her 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq since the Repukes used hysteria to shove it through. But I find it very difficult to forgive the Iranian vote.

If she doesn't know by now how those fools in the Bush Administration operate she will never figure it out. She voted to give them another blank check. Irresponsible, to say the least.

P.S. The 3:00 AM courage originated in a quote about General U.S. Grant. Someone said about him that he had not only normal courage but 3:00 am courage. That when you are up late at night doubting your own judgment Grant would make a decision and stick to it. He wouldn't let self doubt change his mind.

Of course the Repukes have perverted this idea by claiming Bush has the uncanny ability to always be right. And hence he never second guesses himself.

But the difference is: Grant had very good judgment. At least on military questions he was a

[Durango]

My computer screwed me. I was going to say. The difference is that, at least on military questions Grant was brilliant . But Bush not only lacks judgment, he is ignorant also.

[Macready]

I am confused . . . it says there are 9 comments posted here . . and I only see one . .. I posted one earlier and it also says no comments pending . .. .

so I want to say again Great blog . . .thank you for posting . .. hillary is a hawk . . .there is no way of disguising her voting record or distorting it to prove otherwise . . . she repeatedly has shown bad judgement . . . her vote for the illegal invasion of Iraq and her support for kyl/lieberman show she is definitely the wrong person to sit in the Oval Office . . . she would only be marginally better than the chimp and suspect she will continue his foreign policy agenda . . .the sooner she is out of this race the better . . .

[Macready]

Brilliant analysis . . .thank you so much for posting . .. . hillary is a hawk she has repeatedly shown that in her voting record, she is also a follower . . . who repeatedly has shown poor judgement . .. she is incapable of standing alone . . . . she is not a diplomat . . .her campaign has shown that very clearly . .. diplomacy is the answer to world peace . . . not more wars . .. hillary is not presidential material. . . she votes with her friends . . . and with political calculation -- she lacks moral integrity . . . we need a president with vision . . .with the courage to meet with the President of Iran and talk . . . dialogue not war . .. that is why I am for Obama

[fussygorilla]

As I have said before, U.S. system of government needs change. We need a Parliamentary system with two or more political parties with DIFFERENT ideologies and platforms for people to choose. We need, like in Britain, political parties where members climb up the ladder by proving qualifications and knowledge and after many years of service, get elected to party leadership.
What we have in our Presidential system and parties is a disaster. They are all bought and sold out by corporations and money (just look at AIPAC) and how U.S. congress has become "occupied territory" to Jewish lobby and Israel who serve Israel's interests not American.

[UrbanInterloper]

You basically said in an article what I've been feeling for five and half years: that Clinton cannot be trusted.

To call it bad judgment is an understatement. She has failed the leadership test on the most serious matters of war and national security, with breathtaking, disastrous, fatal consequences that even she has finally admitted during the Ohio debate that she now regrets. Too little, much too late. The country is less safe, and the world is less safe because of that disastrous lack of judgment when it mattered most. She could have shown real courage. She didn't. She needs to go--not just lose the nomination.

I would add her advocacy of a failed status-quo towards Israel and Palestine and the stalled peace process as well, on top of her failures of leadership on Iraq and Iran.

[fussygorilla]

Good for you Omid. Neither Clinton nor Obama or McCain knows ANYTHIG about Iran or what policy to adopt vis a vis Iran's growing influence in the region and its INDEPENDENCE from U.S. A.

U.S. political SYSTEM need a revolutionary change so that qualified and well-informed persons can run for president not whoever the corporate money can create.

[ChrisO]

"Yet what Obama chose to do showed his superior sense of judgment on vital national security issues. " I have no ideas what this means. Obama chose to skip the vote, maintaining his pattern of evading responsibility. I guess that's admirable to some folks.

[UrbanInterloper]

I have no idea if this is provable or not, but Obama claimed at the time of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment that the vote was called up on very short notice and it was not possible for him to get to D.C. to cast a vote.

Still, casting a vote for the amendment is still clearly worse than not voting at all. No matter what criticism Clinton levels at Obama on this amendment, she loses, because she voted with Bush to escalate the likelihood of war with Iran. Either she stands by voting with Bush, or she admits that yet again, she made a mistake on national security. She's damned either way--because of nothing but her own bad decision to vote "yea."

[jhamm1]

And this underscores the primary point which seems to have traversed in one ear and out the other of far too many Clinton supporters who essentially hear what they want to hear. Notwithstanding her recent stupidity with regard to Iraq and Iran, her role behind pressuring Bill to stage airstrikes on Kosovo only backfired when, instead of immediately fleeing the country, Milosevic escalated his campaign against Albanians, whereby several thousand more were killed. Indeed, this prompts another point, aside from the fact that Hillary Cliton shares Bush's affinity for instigating military operations in the pursuit of ideological objectives, her prior patterns demonstrate that she knows little next to nothing about the geopolitical, miltary, or sociological structure of the various nations within which she decides to intervene, and thus no anticipation of the disastrous consequences which inevitably follow.

[desmirl]

As long as Hilary remains a WARMONGER she will continue to be wrong about EVERYTHING! She voted to go to war with Iraq (hadn't read the NIE), voted to fund the war time and again, and voted for Kyl-Lieberman so Bush could have a back door to sneak into a war with Iran. She accepts money from the wrong kind of people (military-industrial lobbyists) and is shameless about her perfidy. She runs a schizo campaign where she tries to be ballsier than Bush or Cheney, while at the same time pretending she cares about children. What a PHONY!

[Countess]

Hillary Clinton was wrong about cluster bombs, she was wrong to play the religious card and the race card and now the fear card. She is wrong to play only to the predjudices of people but then she plays with what she has which is very little.