Clinton's "mistake"

I admit, I've been one of those, with four years hindsight, who scoff when Hillary Clinton says things like "If I'd known then what I know now" she wouldn't have voted for the Iraq resolution. C'mon, I and others say, everybody knew Bush/Cheney had no "Plan B." They were invading regardless of what anyone "voted."

But today I took the time to go back and read her actual words from the time, and thought through honestly what the situation was at the time, and I agree, she doesn't have anything to apologize for (yes, yes, I know -- I'm agreeing with David Brooks...the head...it hurts).

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded...that a vote for the resolution best serves the security 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 [sic] 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.

It's easy now to ask how could she put such "awesome responsibility" in the hands of one so irresponsible? But the full depths of the depravity of this administration was not yet clear. Yes, we knew they were "marketing" a war, but it was some time before Suskind's book on Paul O'Neil had come out indicating they'd planned the war from Inauguration day (and "deficits don't matter").

And it would have been a dangerous position for a Senator to take in voting against authorization. At the time, Bush was -- we thought -- building a case for allies. For the Senate not to authorize would have undercut Bush's argument with the UN and with potential allies. And, moreover, not authorizing would have undercut the threat to Hussein. Saddam Hussein could have concluded that Bush was taking aim, but the gun had no bullets. Moreover, the threat appeared to be working. Hussein did let inspectors back into the country and, obviously, they had full access (since they rightly concluded there were no working WMD). And, if later reports were to be believed, he was desperately trying to negotiate a way out of an all-out invasion, including relinquishing power.

While I certainly respect those who were violently against this from the very beginning -- who saw through the likelihood of the invasion and the disastrous results that could easily be predicted -- I admit I wasn't one of them. I thought at the time that finding a way to bringing an end to the inhumane and (I thought, but was wrong) ineffectiveness of the sanctions, and bringing an end to a regional threat was worth giving Bush the tools to bring a real threat to Saddam's power.

I was wrong, so I can't really condemn Hillary Clinton for making similar calculations.

It would be nice, furthermore, if our sagacious political leaders voted in a vacuum with absolutely no political calculations in mind, but that's not to be. Look at who was "right" about the war: Dennis Kucinich. Howard Dean. Kucinich is widely perceived, even by liberals, as a bit of a joke. And Howard Dean is still depicted in the (liberal) media as seriously unserious about national security issues. Oh, and a bit unhinged. They were right, and they still are paying a political price for that.

It would have been beyond brave for Clinton to have done that. It would have been stupid. To take away the power to threaten (legal) war from the Executive Branch would have most certainly come back to haunt someone who hoped to assume that position herself. And to take away from him an argument he was about to make at the UN would have been illogical to her. We can't fault her for not realizing that Bush had no intention of relying on UN resolutions or allies on the road to "Mission Accomplished."

I think, in the end, Clinton has the smart position. She and her fellow senators gave Bush that "awesome responsibility" and, through lies and misdirection, he misused that responsibility. Clinton's strategy is to convince voters of three things: that if she had been president, we wouldn't be bogged down in a civil war; that as president she'll end the damn nightmare; and, most importantly, that this is George W. Bush's war. Now whether that smart position will get her through the primaries remains to be seen.