CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.
Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
'How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath?'
Wednesday, April 21, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EDT (1410 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."
"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."----
"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/But clearly it was a vote for if not war, the immenent threat of war...
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- 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.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.htmlBut I guess it is too tough to own up to the fact that your vote was tragically flawed and that is your responsibility alone given that 23 Senators disagreed with your vote (this was no Patriot Act):
MR. RUSSERT: Let me bring you back to October 10 of 2002, when the Senate had to vote on the authorization to go to war. This was Senator Clinton on the floor of the Senate.
(Videotape, October 10, 2002):
SEN. CLINTON: So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein, this is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Casting your vote for conviction for the authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution. That same week Senator Obama gave a speech, and this is what he said: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
Who had the better judgment at that time?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, let's put this in context. You didn't show my entire speech--of course, you don't have time to do that--because I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for preemptive war. I said that on the floor, I said it consistently after that. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose. And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in. But I said I was against preemptive war, I spoke out against it.
-----
MR. RUSSERT: Viewers can read the transcript from November 11 when I did talk to Senator Obama about this. He also added that from his vantage point, the administration had not made the case, but let people read it and make up their own minds.
I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.
-----
MR. RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?
SEN. CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.
MR. RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it's important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama's going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization...
MR. RUSSERT: I asked him those very questions...
SEN. CLINTON: And his answer was very political.
MR. RUSSERT: ...in November.
SEN. CLINTON: I mean, his whole point is that he doesn't make political decisions.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me, let me ask you this way. Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, I talked to her and she's been on MEET THE PRESS, talked about the qualities in a president. And she said one of the most important is that you learn from mistakes. Looking back on your vote in October of 2002, what can you learn from that mistake, the way you'll make decisions in the future?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it. It was a sincere vote at the time, based on my assessment of, number one, what the potential, you know, risks might be if left unchecked, given the problems that we were facing in the world with global terrorism, and the hope that we would get inspectors back in to figure out what had been going on since '98. We hadn't had inspectors since '98. I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it. And as I said, I was told by the White House personally that the point of the authority was to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein that he was going to have to be held accountable finally, that we would know once and for all what he had there that could be used as he had used it in the past.
But you know, Tim, I think that it's only fair to look at the entire context, because, you know,I was against a preemptive war. I said at the time that would be a mistake. Obviously, President Bush doesn't listen to me or a lot of other people,and unfortunately, we're in the situation we are now, and we're going to have to have very careful and steady leadership to get us out with the least amount of damage.
Dear Hillary,
It is not a Jesuitical argument to debate the merits of the ability to make the correct decision on whether or not to support unlimited military intervention in a hostile foreign nation. Why can't you own up to the fact that it was a vote for war and that even Chuck Hagel, who you try to hide behind, realized it was a vote for war. In his floor speech of October 9th, 2002 he states very clearly that this was most likely not a vote for diplomacy but a vote for war:
However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead.
The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year.
The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen.While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control.
In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_04HagelDodd.html#hagelThe Iraq War Resolution was not a vote for war? Give me a break! It might be politically easier for you then to actually accept responsibility for your vote and not just habitually lie about what most of us know to be truly false. John Edwards has apologized. John Kerry has apologized. Chuck Hagel has said that Iraq is "an absolute replay of Vietnam" and that "we have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion." I presume that includes the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF YOU HAD VOTED PRESENT!
:eyes: :mad:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
