From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2007 - 15:39:22 EST
During a weekend campaign stop in Iowa, Senator Clinton was repeatedly questioned about her vote in 2002 to authorise the war in Iraq, but she stopped short of repudiating that vote. "If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give the President the authority," she said. "And I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it that he is saying the next president would have to deal with Iraq. This was his decision to go to war. He went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office." http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/troop-withdrawal-is-bushs-job-says-clinton/2007/01/29/1169919274634.html Flashback to November 2005: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," Clinton said, in an email sent to her supporters on Tuesday. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/195654.shtml Flashback to April 2004: "How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry' King Live." "I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/ Flashback to October 2002: "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option. (...) This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. (...) My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. (...) I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed." http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html (The resolution formally stated "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq). "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." - Bill Clinton, 1998 *** It all seems pretty consistent at least, and it's easy to point to mistakes afterwards of course. As Lenin remarked, in politics, you have to be correct at the correct time, which can be hellishly difficult, even if you had the best of democracy. But, given we all make mistakes, where's the flaw in the Clinton position, if there is one? Prima facie, it seems - with the benefit of hindsight - to be a threefold apparent political naivity. Firsty, there's the bit about "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war". Then there's the 2004 statement that "I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen." Finally, "we should expect him [i.e. Mr Bush] to extricate our country from this before he leaves office." But beyond that, in essence, a very simple idea - the idea that the government of Iraq constituted a direct threat to the United States at the time. Jurriaan The years have passed so quickly One thing I've understood I am only learning To tell the trees from the wood I know what's coming down And I know where it's coming from And I know and I'm sorry (yes I am) But I never could speak my mind And I know just how you feel And I know now, what I have done And I know, and I'm guilty (yes I am) But I never could read your mind I know what I was missing But now my eyes can see I put myself in your place As you did for me - John Lennon, I Know (I know), from the album "Mind Games" (1973)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST