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.