General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why on Earth should we nominate a presidential candidate who voted for war with Iraq? [View all]DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I'll give you one.
Pretend for 10 minutes that you were Hillary back then. Seriously. You are a new Senator. Everyone comes to you, though, for information because your husband was President. Bill always believed Saddam had WMD. Always. So if Iraq had them then, they certainly do now.
The information provided to you by the Bush Admin backs that up. Bill tells you it's right. The hawkish wing of the Dem Party doesn't want to look weak. They want to sign the authorization, too. Then Bush says it's just to get in there to do all the necessary inspections. Even though the title belies that point, you grasp at the straw.
Fast forward to now. You've been something Bill Clinton never was. Secretary of State. You've seen things Bill never saw - how things work from the ground up - because you traveled extensively and managed a department. And your agency was the target of a huge op by some group who killed four of your own. You know someone on the inside was involved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Would you ever just take someone's word for anything again? Or would you ensure that you saw actual intelligence product, not just massaged reports about intelligence, before ever authorizing war again?