2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton’s Iraq War Albatross - Consortiumnews.com
George W. Bushs Iraq invasion may rank as the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history spreading chaos across the Mideast and now into Europe, yet polls show Democrats nationwide favor nominating Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and backed it even after Bushs WMD claims were debunked, recalls Stephen Zunes.
By Stephen Zunes
Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq. That war not only resulted in 4,500 American soldiers being killed and thousands more permanently disabled, but also hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the destabilization of the region with the rise of the Islamic State and other extremists, and a dramatic increase in the federal deficit, resulting in major cutbacks to important social programs.
Moreover, the primary reasons Clinton gave for supporting President George W. Bushs request for authorizing that illegal and unnecessary war have long been proven false.
As a result, many Democratic voters are questioning despite her years of foreign policy experience whether Clinton has the judgment and integrity to lead the United States on the world stage. It was just such concerns that resulted in her losing the 2008 nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama, an outspoken Iraq War opponent.
This time around, Clinton supporters have been hoping that enough Democratic voters the overwhelming majority of whom opposed the war will forget about her strong endorsement of the Bush administrations most disastrous foreign policy. Failing that, theyve come up with a number of excuses to justify her October 2002 vote for the authorization of military force. Here they are, in no particular order:
Hillary Clintons vote wasnt for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later. (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)
Furthermore, if then-Sen. Clintons desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldnt have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
:::snip::::
When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for unequivocal support for Bushs firm leadership and decisive action as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism. She insisted that Iraq was somehow still in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to neutralize Iraqs weapons of mass destruction.
Read more:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/30/hillary-clintons-iraq-war-albatross/