Obama's Opening: The Chameleonic Clinton Campaign and the War in Iraq

"I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning" -- President William Jefferson Clinton in Iowa on November 27

The American public, very tired of the war and American occupation of Iraq, longs for a leader who will tell the truth about the quagmire in that country; and talk credibly about how to get out. In the Democratic presidential primaries, Sen. Barack Obama's trump card so far has been that, back in 2002, he opposed the Iraq war (in Illinois) and Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to grant Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq. To get to the heart of the matter, in what many Democrats consider the biggest issue of their adult lives, he was right and she was wrong.

Former President Bill Clinton has now set the stage for Obama to raise, or induce others to press, the fundamental question about Hillary's campaign for the presidency. His intervention in Iowa earlier this week served to accentuate her own ambivalent--or wishy-washy--approach to major issues. As the whole world knows, Obama and Mrs. Clinton are in a tight race to win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. Her husband made a remark in Iowa that can only be interpreted as an attempt to fuzz the historical record so as to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time.

In regard to the WAR, her basic position on withdrawal of American troops is not very different from the evolving new Bush White House position: Begin gradual "redeployment" or withdrawal now, while leaving a large number of combat troops in Iraq beyond November 2008. Yet, in an attempt to soften the political impact of her own October 2002 vote--which is on the record--Bill Clinton is telling voters that he opposed the U.S. invasion from the outset, thereby glossing over the more nuanced views of the war he has expressed over time. (Patrick Healy, "Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start," New York Times, November 28.)

Bill Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush did. As early as June 2004, he said, "I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job," referring to the UN weapons inspections there before the war. Of course, this was before Sen. Clinton of New York was formally a presidential candidate. Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who had opposed the invasion from the start -- now Sen. Obama of Illinois.

Did they privately differ on her Senate vote in 2002? Or did he basically concur with her vote?

Sen. Clinton has, at times, cited the experience her husband had dealing with the Iraqi government in the 1990s as one reason that she gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt when she voted for the the authority to go to war in 2002. Advisers to former President Clinton said this week, according to the Times, that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose -- in a direct manner -- sitting President Bush's military decision.

However, past remarks made by the former president do leave open a question about how fervently he opposed the war at the outset and before it grew widely unpopular. In immediate hindsight, Clinton did not sound like a fierce critic: "I supported President Bush when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," he said on May 18, 2003, during a commencement speech at Tougaloo College in Mississippi.

(After talking one way and then another during the Fall 1990 military buildup in the Persian Gulf, when extensive hearings were held by Sen. Sam Nunn and the Senate Armed Services Committee on what the U.S. response should be to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, then Gov. Clinton memorably said he would have backed the war if the Congressional vote had been close but that he agreed with the arguments against it. The vote in the Senate was close.)

Today, she is running for president, and he is running interference for her with the stakes getting higher a little more than a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Where does she leave off and he begin? More fundamentally, just WHO IS SHE--apart from her identification with his presidency and her term in the Senate? WHO ARE THEY? Two for the price of one equals what for the voters? This is not an easy bet for Democratic voters in the primaries where the war is the number one issue. It is almost as if the Clintons are listening to Dick Morris again on "triangulation." Do they have a moral compass when it comes to principled stands on the issues? It is a fair question.

Here is the Washington Post headline of November 29: "Bill Clinton's Claim of Opposing Iraq War From Outset Disputed." Glenn Kessler and Anne Kornblut wrote: "A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he 'opposed Iraq from the beginning,' saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion.

"Clinton's comments in Iowa on Tuesday went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003. But the disclosure of his presence in briefings by Rice -- and his private expressions of support -- may add to the headaches that the former president has given his wife's campaign in recent weeks."

The former NSC aide added:

"the White House at the time had little concern about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for the war and 'they discussed inviting her to various White House events as a sort of reward for her support'."

The Post story continued:

"Although Bill Clinton is still viewed as a political asset, particularly in the hotly contested Democratic primaries, he has also repeatedly made remarks that have put him out of step with his wife's message and irritated Clinton campaign aides who have been forced to address them."

This week, Jay Carson, of Sen. Clinton's campaign, quickly sought to put the former president's comments on Iraq into context -- arguing that Clinton had always had concerns about attacking Baghdad. "This administration assured us that Saddam Hussein had [weapons of mass destruction], that the war was over 2,500 casualties ago and that the insurgency was in its last throes," he said. "Their claim that President Clinton privately offered his support for the war should be viewed with the same level of credibility." Carson also said: "As he said from the beginning and many times since, President Clinton disagreed with taking the country to war in Iraq without allowing the weapons inspectors to finish their jobs."

The campaign is straining to make clear that Clinton will remain his wife's chief, and best, surrogate:

"President Clinton is a huge asset to the campaign. Everywhere he goes, he draws large, supportive crowds," said Howard Wolfson, a senior Hillary Clinton adviser.

Sen. Obama should continue to stress to voters that his original anti-war stance still matters, and that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Sen. Clinton different now. As Peter Beinart has suggested in the Post, Obama should be flattered. On foreign policy, Clinton is not the same person she was five years ago. Much of what she says about the Middle East these days represents a tacit acknowledgment that she was wrong and he was right.

Comments

[ms.understood]

It really makes no difference if Obama voted against the war originally, because since then, what scraps you can find of his voting record is identical to Hillary's. He also said that he would give illegals driver's licenses, which is the same stance that Hillary was given so much grief over just a couple of weeks ago. What's obvious is that he's playing a position to become her choice for Vice by mimicking her voting record. It's funny how people tend to disect Hillary but miss obvious discrepancies with other candidates. The only reason people hate Hillary so much is because her husband cheated and lied about it while he was in office, none of which had or has now anything to do with her or her competence.

[LeeFromVA]

The worst thing about Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was that she did so to help her out in future elections. She's more concerned about winning office than she is about stopping Dubya from making the worst decision in recent history. As president he didn't even need congressional approval to start the attack. He put the vote out there because he knew there were a lot of spineless Democrats that didn't want to look weak on terror, and once he got their approval he could throw it back in their face. Made it look like the whole country was behind him. And she fell for it. A person's motivation says a lot about them. For Hillary it's all about personal gain. I believe Barack Obama got into this election for all the right reasons. I believe he truly wants a better America. That's what you call inspiration. He inspires me to be a better person. He inspires me to care. He inspires me to go to the voting booth and actually vote FOR someone instead of just voting to stop a Republican. We need hope. We need Obama.

[MPeter]

Bill Clinton shows the real danger of nominating HRC. The jobs of VP and Secretary of State will not exist. He is going to interfere in everything the Administration does, thus becoming a President for the 3rd time, which is unconstitutional. The couple is as slippery as an eel. For them, lying comes so easily, they no longer know the difference.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I nominate Mickey Mouse. He doesn't have a bad
side...won't say anything controversial or out-of-context unless the writers flub it, and
you could depict him completing feats of
derring-do while telling you allll about the
state of the budget and stuff.

www.mickeyin08.justkidding.madeyalook.whatever...

[LeeFromVA]

Obama can do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans. He really is inspirational and that is catching on. He can represent us on the world stage and we can be proud. His life experiences have lead him to be the man he is today. It's time for us to turn the page. It's time for Hope. It's time for Obama.

[lentinelia]

"Sen. Obama should continue to stress to voters that his original anti-war stance still matters, and that it's the key to understanding what makes him and Sen. Clinton different now."
- William E. Jackson, Jr.
November 29, 2007

""I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."
-Barack Obama
March 31, 2006

[arethabaez]

All that blabbing just to point out that BO (Mr. Hilary Lite) should try to collect MORE brownie points based on his pre-war statement?
Hasn't that event already been milked to the limit? BO's "I'm where Bush is at" 04 comment, and lack of any anti-war leadership in the Senate since , more than cancels out any previously earned credit from that theoretical speech.

[Countess]

Should anyone stumble across the Clinton's moral compass please return it the campaign headquarters.

[jmpurser]

PLEASE don't wait for Obama to show up and do the right thing. He couldn't even show up and do his current job when it mattered so why would anyone assume he'd do better now?

[middleoftheroad]

Let's end the 27 years of a Bush or Clinton in the White House. If she wins it will be 32 or maybe 36! It's CRAZY. Stop the insanity. No high school, undergrad, or grad students alive can remember a time when we did not have these families running the nation. It will be four more years of the counrty torn apart!
Obama 08
myspace.com/republicans4obama

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama for President, but I must say in all honesty how disappointed I was when I read about his health care plan in Paul Krugman's column today. I trust Mr. Krugman's accuracy (though I hope his motive for singling out Obama for criticism *twice* now is not an undisclosed support for Hillary Clinton).

Yet if we can all back up for just a second and remember *why* Obama chose to run in the first place, even issues as pressing as Iraq and health care become of secondary importance:

America is divided. We keep switching from one President half the country hates to another President half the country hates. Obviously, if a President such as Bill Clinton does a pretty decent job in many areas ("peace-and-prosperity"), it matters a little that half the voters whose lives he helped to improve ended up rewarding him with their hatred. Let them hate-- if America better off.

Or is it? If Hillary is elected, she will be able to accomplish very little because right-wingers have perfected the art of smearing, brainwashing, destroying (Fox News wasn't as influential in the 1990s). Half the electorate won't want to make things better-- they'll want revenge on Clinton. I can't believe they'd be so opposed to their own self-interest, but that's what the GOP is all about. Hillary would have a bigger mess to fix in 2009 than Bill had in 1993, and better organized, more venomous conservatives to prevent her from fixing it.

So it's not just a matter of Obama opposing the Iraq War-- he had less to lose in 2002 than the junior senator from New York. And his health care plan may be flawed, as well as his language defending it. But unless Democrats wake up and start supporting Richardson or even Dodd-- the only way to prevent the disaster that Hillary Clinton would be is to support the authentic, smart, charismatic, fresh and likeable Barack Obama, who in fact is truly liberal enough to pull the country in that direction.

[peckerwould]

to move freedom forward and give peace a hand go to lovolutionvillage.org

[heyguy]

this is a woman we are talking about that is all i can say to the other 35 trillion women and here is a article i liked from bphouse.com/blaze/Despite unanimous public opposition,
FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin is secretly trying to rush what is today essentially the same media consolidation ruling designed to put broadcast media into hands of but a few giant corporations.

Yes, YOU did overturn Kevin"s dirty little habits by publicly pressuring him to stop screwing you, back in 2003. Seems Martin thinks you"ve fallen asleep since then.

Congress has already introduced a bipartisan bill, "The Media Ownership Act of 2007³ (S.2332), in attempt to stop Kevin"s freedom-destructive act. A public hearing had bare minimum legal notice of the latest Martin push in Seattle on Nov. 9.

Under

[Plowboy]

The war in Afghanistan is just as criminal as the one in Iraq. It was not Afghans who attacked us. Their government said clearly that if we could provide them any evidence of who did it, they would not only allow us to come and capture the culprit(s), but that they would aid us in doing it. (The attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with bin Laden and everything to do with that oil pipeline we wanted and the Afghans didn't.)
Recall also that when Bin Laden was hemmed up in a small region, we puilled troops away to attack Iraq instead of going for him. And our great president, the awesome George Walker Bush himself, stated in no uncertain terms that "Bin Laden is not important."
(Well, earlier, when he needed a pretext for making war on Afghanistan, her had said that capturing him, dead or alive, was our number one concern. But one must know that when a political statement has served its purpose, it is no longer a valid statement.)

[coolkraft]

go Obama