Hillary Clinton Was Wrong on the 2 Big National Security Issues of Our Time

I have previously ("Clinton's Struggles to Explain Her Iraq Position", February 27, 2008) addressed Hillary Clinton's votes on the Iraq War. She not only voted for the Iraq War Resolution, she voted against the Levin Amendment that differed from the War Resolution only by forcing George Bush to seek Congressional approval for a war if, after inspections, the Security Council did not authorize it. Despite never having read the NIE, and thus not knowing what it said, she claimed she knew she had all the information she needed.

Hillary Clinton also opposed a timetable for withdrawal until she was no longer 'inevitable' for the nomination. She was posturing not to be open to criticism by the Republican nominee.

Then, realizing that her political fortunes in the Democratic primary depended on tacking away from the neocon positions she held, she began talking about troop withdrawals. Nonetheless, she refused to say directly that her vote was a mistake... that is, until the Ohio debate when her political fate depended on it. Now, if you listen to Bill Clinton, the only way to end the war is to nominate Hillary!

But, Hillary has still not told us why her vote was a mistake. It is important because it conveys what another Clinton presidency might be like with respect to issues of war and peace. If, as she has said, her vote was a mistake because Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice screwed up the execution, then she might believe that the war was a good idea, just mishandled.

Barack Obama has told us. Prior to the war he outlined not only why it would be a mistake, but also why his position on Iraq does not mean he is just against war. The same position, taken in a different speech in a different venue and, likely, unbeknownst to one another because neither was a well-known political figure at the time, was articulated by James Webb, now the Senator from Virginia.

The Obama-Webb position was that attacking Iraq would result in a long occupation, tying down US troops and draining our resources; that western boots on muslim soil made us more vulnerable, not less, and strengthen the hand of al-Qaeda. The Obama-Webb analysis concluded that it would divert our resources from fighting al-Qaeda where it counted -- in Pakistan/Afghanistan, where the job was far from completed.

Hillary Clinton has not revealed any such understanding of the world, the limitations of US power, nor of the tradeoffs between the use of military power and its impact on other power (political, social, economic) that might be more effectively employed. She has also displayed a very strong tendency to do the politically expedient even at the expense of wise, sober policy.

That does not provide a warm-and-fuzzy feeling that she would be a wise steward of our foreign and military policy.

Hillary's second big mistake was her opposition to Barack Obama's position on pursuing al-Qaeda across the Pakastani border if good intelligence revealed an opportunity to strike, and the Pakastani government would not act. Let us get this straight: Hillary voted "with conviction" (her words) to launch an attack on Iraq; but she opposed going after al-Qaeda in its hideouts.

Such monumental and consequential errors of judgment do not, however, appear to phase her. Sunday, on the Stephanopoulos program, Hillary argued that Bush had taken the eye off the ball by invading Iraq. She also said that not providing clarity that we shall be leaving within a certain time (aka a timetable) would reduce incentives for the Iraqis to settle their own disputes.

She said all that with a straight face, and without any statement or non-verbal sign of remorse, embarrassment or responsibility.

And, therein may lie the real concern.

Comments

[magen]

Question for Hillary supporters-

After she's been caught in so many lies, how do you know when Hillary's telling the TRUTH?

[KillTheMessenger]

Never. That's an easy one. It's opposite day every day.

[oldlakelady]

Help me to understand why the 24-7 media can't be bothered to report honestly on these important issues? Do the Clintons have that many connections? Do the republicans control the mass media beyond Fox?

[RRonin]

Is the bear Catholic? Does the Pope go dookie in the woods?

[JimR]

The Pope goes dookie in the woods? Holy Crap!

[burnt]

Great anti-spin overview and analysis Paul... thanks. It's imperative to keep the revisionists at bay by constantly reminding the electorate of the facts. As a nation, we so easily believe the lies made by those who would rewrite history for political or economic gain. It's a sad realization that our educational system and mainstream media dumb us down for those reasons.

alienated in Seattle

[LizM]

Paul,

I don't know whether you've had a chance to check out the actual debate in the Senate but you may be interested in doing that . I have a great link for it!

But, you really need to focus on the Senators who actually know what the heck they are talking about and, of course, Senator Clinton isn't one of them. If I were you, I would pay particualar attention to what Senator Biden had to say over the course of that entire debate. He is, after all, the resident expert and authority on the subject.

You may just see this resolution, including the much misunderstood Levin admendment, in an entirely different light.

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/

[PaulAbrams]

Thank you VERY MUCH. Great site; the exchanges read like a tragic film script.
I read Biden. It was purely legalistic---for him they were dispositive. He said nothing about the enterprise's wisdom. He predicted 25-100,000 troops there a year after invading, cost $19B!
He got the Levin Amendment completely wrong. He said, hey don't worry about voting this down, because the vote for the Iraq War Resolution itself was not a pre-emption doctrine vote, but rather an enforcing-UN-resolutions-that -Saddam-had-violated vote. Again, pure legalisms. He believed George Bush's assurances that he had not decided to go to war.
The point of the Levin Amendment was to give Bush all the authorizations he needed to insert inspectors through UN action; to go to war w/o returning to Congress if there were a rapid escalation by Iraq; to go to war w/o returning to Congress if the UN Security Council authorized it; but to return to Congress for authorization if Bush decided upon it, absent an escalation, but the UN was not behind it.
Russ Feingold opposed Levin bcz he was not satisfied that the conditions and outcomes the UN Security Council would require would be sufficiently well-thought out. THERE's a comment worth reading.
My point: if Hillary (now add, Biden) wanted intrusive inspections, but not authorize war absent a real coalition, Levin Amendment was the vehicle.
They screwed us. Hillary for political positioning. Biden for legalistic, but not strategic, reasons.

[LizM]

You know...there's a saying for what's happening here...I can't remember how it goes but the gist of it is that two relatively analytical people (that would be you and me! ) can look at very same situation, cover it from all angles, and yet see two completely different things depending on our respective...perspectives. How we see the Iraq resolution authorizing the use of US military force is a classic case in point.

I have come to the conclusion that I have the equivalent of a snowballs chance in Hell of changing your mind on this and your chances of changing mine are even less! And so, it's the old 'let's agree to disagree' and hope for the best in 2009.

Glad you liked the site, though.

[RickO]

I feel somewhat sad fot the "low information" voters out there. These are people no less capable of understanding complexity as anyone else but who simply do not get the information. They come home form work and catch a little CNN before Wheel of Fortune and hear the opposing viewpoint from their O'Reilly-watching co-workers (who are low-functioning rather than low-information) and that's their view of the world outside their family anf friends. They vote useless wedge issues and are easily manipulated. This is not lost on the Hillary campaign. This is her base.

My neighbor across the street has a hillary sticker on her car. Since I've know her, I've heard her say she thought Iraq was in South America, wasn't sure who the current Vice President was and was sure Mitt Romney used to play for the Mets.

[thedirtman]

LOL - So sad but so real. You can see why so many voters think Obama is a Muslim. I'm really glad that Al Gore invented the internet.

[LizM]

While you feel somewhat sad for the "low-information" voters out there, I'll go ahead and feel completely down in the dumps for you, me, thedirtman, and the rest of us who count ourselves among the minority who wonder what exactly it will take to shock our friends and neighbors out of their blissful ignorance. Because, one day, all of this will affect their lives, in a very direct way.

[wakupmagy]

If I can be forgiven for going back to the nineties . . . does it occur to anyone that the woman who "almost brought down the President" is actually Hillary Clinton?

Her Very First Mistake was being a "Fighter" and a Pugilist" (and all the other inane, offensive words her camp is using) when she, and she alone, urged Bill Clinton not to settle the Paula Jones case.

This begat Linda Tripp and then Ken Starr and ultimately, a vote for impeachment and the destruction of the Clinton presdiential legacy, and a lot of "collateral damage" for a lot of other people.

There is a clear picture of Hillary Clinton exhibiting angry, aggressive errors in judgment that have devastating consequences. Let us hope we never see another War Room in the White House. We have all paid too high a price.

[JamieStarr]

Hillary is a political hack.

She has no real sense of what she should be, so she just mimics what she thinks will work. She is trying to be Bill (without the personality) and McCain (without the credibility).

[Doofus]

Not only was she wrong then, but she still asserts that she was NOT wrong.

She demonstrates bad judgment, and the inclination to do so again.

[Herrington]

Only an idiot could not see the tactical similarities between Vietnam, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the American occupation of Afghanistan and the American occupation of Iraq. In all of these conflicts, there was a sovereign nation that was both friendly to or tolerant of the insurgency being confronted that harbored or abetted the insurgency. A place in which they could draw supply and support and recruits.

The Soviet Afghanistan adventure was in no small way responsible for the collapse of the Soviet super power. We are, if not already there, well on the path to losing the status of super power due to commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we lost the Vietnam war only because we could not win it. All of this due to the tactical advantage of a base from which to launch attacks and then retreat to safety and support.

Obama’s assessment of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts shows an understanding of military limitations that surpasses anything offered by his opposition either Democratic or Republican. One has to assume that there is a reason for Clinton and McCain not to be espousing the same assessments.

In a sense McCain and Clinton are concluding that, in order to “win”, we must attack Iran. That is consistent with the military assessment. The problem is that Iran then becomes the new Iraq and Pakistan harbors Iranian insurgents, on and on until we must conquer the entire middle east. We are going to need a draft.

[Siryn]

It didn't take two eyes to see that Iraq would have been a quagmire for these reasons. The ONLY reason to invade Iraq should have been an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, but the decision was already made to go to war, and we are paying for that over and over again.

[calisax80]

Great article. Hillary Clinton is one of the best liars in modern politics. She does whatever is politically expediate at the time. So many lives affected, so many lies told. I wonder why people still continue to support her with so much at stake in this election. She has shown and proven that she is a fighter. A fighter for votes, power, and status. Not for the America we all long to get back to, the America we want for our kids. Threatening to obliterate whole countries, voting for war without even taking the time to read the NIE, refusing to meet with our advisaries...Are we sure she is a Democrat?

[knighthowl]

Well, we do know she was a Goldwater Girl, and she votes republican on issues of war. She sure as hell is not a traditional democrat.

[thisoldbroad]

Good article & insight. Thank you