Judging Hillary's Judgment

Undecided Democratic voters and uncommitted superdelegates should remember that Senator Hillary Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was at odds with the majority of congressional Democrats -- 60 percent in the House and nearly half in the Senate -- who unlike her opposed the 2002 Iraq War resolution. The 126 Democratic House members and 22 Democratic Senators voting against the invasion included: Nancy Pelosi, current House Speaker; David Obey, current chair of the House Appropriations Committee; Robert Graham, at the time, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and its former chair; Carl Levin, current chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and Daniel Inouye, World War II veteran and current chair of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

While acknowledging that Saddam Hussein might possess weapons of mass destruction, these Democrats realized that such weapons did not pose a significant enough threat to justify the war. They knew that sanctions were still effective. When National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice raised the specter of an Iraqi mushroom cloud, Senator Graham countered that "the briefings I have received suggest our efforts, for instance, to block [Iraq] from obtaining necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful." Senator Edward Kennedy cited evidence that "even with Iraq's obstructions, inspections [had] resulted in the demolition of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons."

These members of Congress also predicted that the Iraq War would increase hostility toward the U.S. Congressman Obey emphasized that an invasion could unleash "an anti-U.S. backlash in the Arab world, a backlash that could generate thousands of new recruits for al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations." Senator Graham noted that a war on Iraq "leaves America more vulnerable to the number one threat facing us today, those international terrorist organizations" and that invading Iraq attacks "the wrong target." Senator Levin added that there would likely "be a reduction in the international support we are receiving for the war on terrorism."

Like other prominent Democrats, they understood that an invasion could destabilize the region. Former Vice President Albert Gore forecast that "the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam." Senator Levin observed that the invasion could "undermine Jordan, Pakistan, and possibly even end up with a radical regime in Pakistan, a nuclear weapons nation."

While comprehending fully that Saddam Hussein was a brutal murderer, these Democrats knew that an invasion might fail to improve either life in Iraq or U.S. security. Congressman Obey warned, "[T]he most serious consequences would well be those we face after Iraq is occupied, unless the effort is well thought out. Based on discussions with the administration and the intelligence community, I believe much more work needs to be done." Senator Graham quoted Winston Churchill's admonition, "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter."

The Iraq War may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history. It has produced tens of thousands of casualties, American and Iraqi, will cost as much as two trillion dollars, and has inspired the world's one billion Muslims to distrust, if not hate, the United States, thereby increasing the risk of terrorism. A critical question therefore is why Senator Clinton's judgment was flawed, when a majority of congressional Democrats with the same information reached an opposite and, as it turns out, accurate judgment of the wisdom of invading. One benchmark, in other words, for judging her judgment -- and also that of the acknowledged Republican presidential nominee, John McCain -- should be the actions of the majority of congressional Democrats who, along with a few Republicans, opposed our disastrous Iraq invasion from the start.

Comments

[Pangaea]

"A critical question therefore is why Senator Clinton's judgment was flawed..."

A nice post. You speak as if her Iraq decision calculus was a uniquely flawed decision. f a “pledge” can be likened to a “vote,” I believe that Clinton’s pledge to abide by DNC rules (regarding Florida and Michigan) parallels her vote for the war in Iraq.

1) Both votes were made without considering what may happen in the long run.
2) Both votes were not based on principle, but on political calculation.
3) When both votes did not work in her favor, she denied personal responsibility for them and found arguments to excuse/ignore her decisions.

Do you agree? If y’all want more detailed explanations, let me know.

[SLone08]

Couldn't agree more

[TheHandyman]

Well said!

[Abie56]

Ditto....agreed!

[mikey683]

As a former New Yorker, I have to say i agree with BillZBubb, (great name). If on 9/12, I'd been told we were ready to use tactical nuclear weapon's have been fine with that. Hind sight is always 20/20.

[theMightyT]

hang on... nuclear weapons?

that has to be the most irresponsible statement ever... you realize you're advocating eradicating millions of people for the actions of a few? thats' insane.

hey wait. isn't that happening now?

[mounthoodliberal]

nuclear weapons? you just proved the point of mr. cohen's blog. rushing into things without a clear idea of what the ramifications are going to be is what hillary has been all about. she was in such a rush, she didn't bother to read the full NIE. even with 20/20 hindsight, as you say, she has never been able to admit her vote was a mistake. she tries to act like since the resolution passed, everyone was behind it. more lies. more poor judgement. more insatiable lust for power. worst of all, i think a lot of her vote was to prove she was tough...what a brutal miscalculation. further, she then votes yes on kyl-lieberman, trying to look tough again, and forgetting how bush got us into the iraq war...

[Abie56]

Buddy, you ain't getting my vote for president.

[Titonwan]

Can we put this guy on an island? Far away?

[Wishb0ne]

I think the desire for revenge and retribution are basic human traits. What I've learned to respect, though, are people who can have those feelings while not acting on them. We can do better than to obey the calls of our instinctive lizard brain, I'd like to think.

[lisakaz]

This is why she cannot be trusted to have the requisite judgement. She pandered rather than did her homework. That's not someone who's going to end this war, esp. with her lobbyist/corporate friends who like things as they are.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Blah, blah, blah.

And Obama's had the same voting record as Hillary since he showed up.

What else ya got?

I've got Amb. Wilson.

[nazgul]

You've just named one of the three 8,000 lb. elephants in the room. How dare you!

(The other two are 2) the odds that an HRC candidacy and/or administration might be crippled by a sex scandal; 3) the pardons, library donations, etc. (i.e., influence peddling).;

[DavidK08]

I'm with you on "(i.e., influence peddling)." 5 Million dollar check can easily be paid back by paying huge money to a former president for a speech. How many, or few people were willing to fund the do-over primaries in FL and MI? How many, or few ultra rich people were on the letter to Pelosi? Why would she hide the tax returns? Funny. It doesn't take much to figure out why the "what about rev. Wright" comes up so often.

[Abie56]

But the market for Bill's speeches may become soft if they contiinue on the current course. They've managed to refresh all of our recollections of the silliness of "their" (as Hill's has now uncovered the truth she was more than the First Lady) presidency and his image has been badly tarnished recently because of it.

It's actually quite sad. I was a supporter of Bill Clinton in the 90s, and have now been forced to remember why I had to continually defend him.

[SeriousBlack]

Spot on.

[standforpeace]

This is the question that no one in the Clinton camp wants to answer. What has made it possible for them to ignore this elephant in the room is the way that many Americans look at the presidency. Many of us seem to believe that a person can somehow have earned the presidency through hard work, longevity, heroism, or any number of other factors that candidates regularly throw out there to support their candidacy. In truth, the presidency is an incredible opportunity to serve the American people. Only 1 of over 300 million Americans can hold the office at any point in time. We simply need to stop loking at this as a prize to be awarded and start thinking about who will be the best public servant. And for my money, demonstrating such poor judgement on such a critical issue and then refusing to even acknowledge the mistake and have an honest conversation with the American people about what you learned from your mistake (not George Bush's mistake, your mistake) should be a disqualifier. The Clinton supporters who argue that they would rather go with Clinton's flawed judgement over Obama who wasn't in the Senate at the time (but publically expressed his reasoned opposition) reminds me of those voters in 2004 who refused to desert Bush because they didn't want to change horses midstream. Sticking with the one that brought you was a mistake then, and it's a mistake now.

[BillZBubb]

I voted for Senator Clinton in the primary for a variety of reasons. Yes, the fact that she was on the hot seat being the Senator from the city and state attacked on 9/11 and with a strong "pro" Israel lobby played into her IWR vote. Obama did not have that on his shoulders. Still Obama spoke against the war which was the wiser position.

But what drives me away from Obama on the war issue is the fact that since coming to the Senate, this "anti-war" candidate has done NOTHING to lead the opposition to the war. He wants to be a leader, where was he? Obama has voted for every war funding bill Bush has demanded. He did not provide strong leadership or even backing on the Feingold/Murtha effort to fully fund a troop pullout with a definite deadline. Why didn't he lead a filibuster move? Obama is getting to have it both ways on Iraq.

I'm sure Obama knows the war is wrong, yet he funds it. I'm sure Clinton knows the war is wrong, yet she funds it. The IWR vote is lost in the noise of that fact.

[ray3]

Actually Obama has worked on ending the Iraq war his proposal to end it in 16 months is written up in the senate. He also worked with the lawyers from Guantanamo to end the torture there including, giving him his office while in D.C. and helping them count votes. He has since been endorsed by those lawyers.

[standforpeace]

So basically you believe that Hillary Clinton authorized a war in which over 4000 Americans have died and thousands more have been wounded, maybe a million Iraqis have been killed or wounded, the Iraqi infrastructure has been destroyed, we're going to end up spending as much as 3 trillion dollars, and the world has turned against the United States FOR POLITICAL REASONS TO ADVANCE/PROTECT HER POLIITICAL CAREER? And you now support her presidential bid? I guess I just don't get that.

[shiplett]

It is important to note two things:

1. Obama has stated (and I do not have a source, or I would post it) that he voted for the funding for two reasons: a. The obvious reason of not wanting to leave our troops without the necessary support; b. He thought that they could negotiate with Bush on how and when to withdraw, or otherwise change the course in Iraq.

2. I believe that he voted against the last bill to fund the war. His position is that, the only way to make Bush believe or understand that people are tired of the war is to cut off funding. Because otherwise, Bush will continue to fund the war indefinitely.

If I can find sources for these arguments, I will post them.

[BillZBubb]

How many of the Democrats who voted against the IWR were from New York--the city and state that took the biggest hit on 9/11? The Republicans and corporate media and "pro" Israel groups had done a good job of whipping Clinton's constituency into a warlike mood. The New York Times was printing all the Bush propaganda as fact, with the ever so "respected" reporter Judith Miller headlining the lies. And the Bush liars were claiming war was absolutely the "last resort" but they needed authority to scare Hussein into compliance.

Many of those voting against the IWR didn't have to face those factors. It was relatively easy for those not in the firing line to be against the Bush administration. Hillary Clinton's judgment does need to be questioned on the IWR vote--she was dumb enough to believe Bush and Rice. But, she didn't vote to start the war.

I question the judgment of those who supposedly oppose the war yet have consistently thwarted efforts to stop it and have always voted for Bush backed war funding. Where were the Democratic candidates when Senator Feingold proposed funding only the secure withdrawal of our forces? The Obama supporters want to have it both ways--attack Clinton on the war, but give Obama a pass even when he has never lead or supported any effort in the Senate to end it.

[notdogmatic]

Hillary's vote had nothing to do with her beliefs about the merits of the bill. She did not want risk being perceived as weak, unpatriotic, etc.. At that time the [probably true] conventional wisdom was that that was why demos lost to republicans. She was positioning herself for the general election. That can be labeled as cynical, pragmatic, foolish-only-with-hindsight, unprincipled, normal politics, or all of the above. What surprises me is that Mr. Cohen would think Hillary's vote, regarless of the importance of the underlying bill, should be analized as if she was influenced by her sense of right or wrong. Remeber in this same time frame Hil authored legislation to criminalize flag burning.

[Titonwan]

It IS because it's a matter of right and wrong. She was dead wrong (excuse me, over 4000 troops are dead- that's wrong)

[sd4peace]

We should demand more from those "representing us." I mean, for crying out loud, I don't think its asking much to vote with a sense of right and wrong.

[vipersdad]

Hillary won a relatively easy victory in her senate campaign. She faced few prospects of being seriously opposed in any re-election campaigns. No one on the democratic side and few on the republican side seriously "bought" the garbage that conflated 9/11 with Iraq. New York is historically a bastion of progressive thinking and I am certain that with more experienced judgement, she could have made the case.
Part of the reason Bush was able to "whip" constituencies into a frenzy was because influential voices like Hillary (and Bill) were either silent or muted.
Had Hillary taken this issue on from the start, she would not have Barack Obama to worry about today.
The comments you make about Obama not leading nor supporting any effort in the senate to end the war are baseless and unsupported by his record.

[standforpeace]

So you agree that Hillary voted for the war (4000 American dead and many more thousands wounded, perhaps a million Iraqis dead and wounded, up to $3 trillion wasted, the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed, and America despised around the world) for political motives? And you think that she should now be rewarded with the presidency?