Sounding very John Kerry-esque, Senator Clinton announced yesterday that she would not have voted to go to war with Iraq if she had known then what she did today:
Clinton has often been asked if she regrets her vote authorizing military action and she usually answers that question with an artful dodge, saying that she accepts responsibility for the vote and suggesting that if the Senate had all the information it has today (no WMD, troubled post-war military planning, etc. . .), there would never have been a vote on the Senate floor.
However, she has never gone as far as some of her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination — who also voted for the war — and called her vote a mistake or declared that she would have cast her vote differently with all the facts presently available to her — until now.
This morning on NBC’s “Today” show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer. “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote,” she said in her usual refrain before adding, “and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”
I like James Joyner’s take:
How, exactly, is that different from what she has been saying? And, given that we didn’t know then what we know now (although many speculated about a postwar catastrophe) this “admission” hardly absolves her of responsibility. It’s akin to saying that you wouldn’t have bet on the Cubs to win the World Series if you’d known they wouldn’t.
Yep. Of course, when Iraq wasn’t at a crossroad, like it seems to be now, Hillary was much more open about saying she supported the war and didn’t regret her vote. Now, with the media hyping the ISG’s recommendations on Iraq and former admin officials like Colin Powell saying we’re “losing” in Iraq, as well as support for the Iraq war continuing to slip, Hillary’s changing her tune - carefully, but all the same that’s what she’s doing.
I’d also like to know what the media obsession with the “if you knew then what you knew now” question. Firstly, does saying yes or no to the question actually advance the debate? What does a “yes” answer prove to the mediots? A “no” answer?
You know what I’d like to see? If the media are hell-bent on asking this question of Democrats (and second-guessing Republicans) on the issue of Iraq, I’d like to see them start asking the question on every other issue. In fact, I’d like to see them ask Congressmen of the past on whether or not they would have advocated and pushed certain ideas had they “known then what they know now”? Like the Congressmen involved in passing the Great Society programs, the expansion of “family planning” aka “sex ed” programs in school both of which led to increased dependence on government, illegitimacy, disease, and kids growing up without fathers because ‘men didn’t matter’? The same types of issues Democrats and other liberal-types continue to hype to this day, the ones that have had a mostly negative influence on our society that they should regret but probably don’t? These types of issues are what Congressmen past and present need to be grilled on, not on whether or not they still support the war. Why? Because wars are sometimes necessary while the government playing social engineer often isn’t. This is just the media’s way of rounding up Democrats (and wavering Republicans) who are on their (anti-war) side of the issue, in order to keep support falling for a war they were against from the get-go.
In related Iraq news, the WaPo reports today that Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are “at odds” over defining the mission and what the time limit should be on how long a possible addition of troops in the area should last. Rick Moran cuts through the WaPo spin on the article here.
| Email This Post | Print This |
I’d like to hear her explain exactly what she thinks she knows now that she didn’t know then. The spinning would make me dizzy. According to documents captured from the Hussein regime, we STILL have reason to be there that would make a ‘no’ vote even more wrong.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 12/19/2006 - 10:01 am
Shrillary has said on more than one occasion, that her vote on Iraq would have not changed, even knowing about the lack of WMD evidence in hindsight.
She’ll get a pass though.
Comment by Fat Tone @ 12/19/2006 - 12:01 pm
Our presence in Iraq started a festering sore, and it will not improve until we remove ourselves. I, for one, am not impressed with labeling our removal as defeat. If that is the guidepost for decision-making, then we can NEVER leave… because resistance to our presence will NEVER stop. If our purpose was to remove WMDs, well, ’nuff said. If our purpose was to remove Saddam, done. If our purpose is to stay until the resistance rolls over like a puppy, well that’s mission impossible. If the Saudis are ordering us to stay and defend the Sunni population, I don’t consider that a particularly good reason because I don’t think our troops should be taking sides in a civil war against the majority Iraqi government on behalf of the Sunni insurgency. If we have to stay to defend the Iraqi majority Shia from the Sunni insurgency, we will soon have the Saudi and all other Sunni peoples in our collective face. This is the definition of a quagmire. Can’t stay, can’t leave. This is not Senator Clinton’s fault. This is the Bush Administration’s war from jump. You worry about spin from those who believed Bush an Cheney when they said they were sure that Saddam had WMDs? None of us need “spin” when we all now know we were lied to. WE are told, “yeah, well, that was then, but we’re there now so … now what?” Ok, now people (including Clinton) are taking positions based on today’s situation. That’s what you want, right? Well, she’s not liking what she sees anymore than I or the rest of my countrymen do. What we need is truth and an immediate impeachment of Bush for throwing our country’s reputation, treasure and military down the toilet. The halfwit has had his day. We need a responsible leader in the WH.
Comment by solitaire @ 12/19/2006 - 12:15 pm
The question I would like answered though Solitaire, is who started labeling the withdrawl or removal of troops a defeat first?
The terrorist?
Because that is exactly how they perceived it. That if they wait just a little longer, the infidel americans will crumble, they lack the will to fight, they are a paper tiger and they will be crushed, if we just continue doing what we are doing.
That sounds like defeat to me.
What do you call withdrawl of troops? I call it RETREATING.
Link
[noun] (military) withdrawal of troops to a more favorable position to escape the enemy’s superior forces or after a defeat; “the disorderly retreat of French troops”
Those calling for it have relabeled it “redeployment”.
Link
Redeployment, #1? Are we redeploying our troops to another combat zone? No. So this doesn’t fit.
Redeployment #2? Are we redeploying our troops to another place to be used for greater effectiveness? No. Moving them out of where they are needed now is rediculous, and doesn’t fit either.
So that leaves us with RETREATING, which seems ot fit exactly what the deomcrats have been saying all along:
an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable.
We hear that its too dangerous, its too difficult, ect, and we should bring the troops home.
I wonder, are these the same people who if a job is just too hard to do, they will give up?
As Baklava (just where is the old goat anyways..heh) always says, it is time to look forward. Retreating is moving backwards, and that is exactly what the Democrats have been suggesting (except Reid now advocates sending MORE troops now - strange NOW he supports that).
We went in, removed a sadistic disctator, the war went exceedingly well and better than we all had hoped. BUT there was some major flaws as I see it in the aftermath, in which I don’t think there was enough thought put into “well what d we do now that we have won?”
That is a big fault I found with this administration.
But again, that is looking back and I will not dwell on that, because its done, and its over with…we nened to look at the here and now, and the future.
How about we answer these questions instead of constantly going back and armchair quarterbacking things that have already happened:
- How do we win?
- How do we get more cooperation from the media to report the good happening in Iraq and not just the bad?
- What do the troops need?
- Give the troops a forum in which they can speak out without fear of any type of reprisal, and let the media broadcast on it each week.
Thee are many more things we can do to look ahead, instead of looking back all the time at what we “coulda done” or “shoulda done”. Hillary Clinton is doing enough of that as is….she would have voted differently if she knew then what she knew now.
Well I would have played the winning lotto numbers if I knew then what I know now also. But life just isn’t that way.
Comment by sanity @ 12/19/2006 - 1:33 pm
Actually Solitaire what we need is an informed electorate. Let’s just use the points the President used in his State of the Union address. We did find WMDs in Iraq, I don’t know where you got the information that we didn’t. We found all sorts of Sarin gas tipped artilery shells.
Joe Wilson even admitted to lying about the whole yellow cake ordeal.
http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/
We know that our military has found over 200 mass graves. Numbers from 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqis were murdered by Saddam. There were horrible unspeakable things done to the citizenry of Iraq, but you don’t even mention that in your divel.
Lastly the President mentioned a threat to his neighbors. Let’s see, Saddam attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He constantly attacked our planes that patrolled the No Fly Zone.
He was giving payments to the family terrorists who attacked Israel.
He was bribing Officials of other countries thru the whole oil for food program.
Solitaire? How long of a list do you need? I get alittle tired of the group speak that floods out of the mouth of the left. Thanks for you input, but you really needed to expand your knowledge. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/19/2006 - 1:35 pm
Hilly the Hun forgot - we did find WMDs in Iraq.
And as for the situation after Saddam was captured - where are the Democrats’ ideas? Shrieking “NO! NO! NO!” is great for fundraiser letters and TV political ads (since they require no thinking), but makes poor national leadership.
Maybe Hilly aspires to one-up JFK and be for the war after being against it after she was for it.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 12/19/2006 - 7:47 pm
“quagmire”
1. Land with a soft muddy surface.
2. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
I think number two is the closest, but it doesn’t sound any different than any other war, be it military or the war on drugs or poverty or Christmas. And, as said above, do we bail just because it’s difficult? Yeah, that’s called retreating, or even more colloquially, “running away”. That’ll look good in the ol’ history books. Makes for great confidence from our foreign friends as well.
But our purpose currently for still being there is, as has been said by Bush and conservative bloggers and pundits over and freakin’ over again, to support the Iraqi government and military until such time that they can effectively handle things without us. Perhaps solitaire can write that down so he doesn’t forget it.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 12/19/2006 - 8:14 pm
Wars are terrible events, but I think many on the left have unrealistic views of what should take place. They are bloody and costly. Even after the initial victory takes place clean up takes years (you could argue that we were still cleaning up the aftermath of WW2 until the fall of the USSR). We didn’t simply leave Germany in May 1945, nor did we leave Japan in September 1945.
You want to talk real quagmires, today is December 16, and on this day the Battle of Verdun ended in 1916. For 10 months the Germans and French fought around the town at a cost of 250,000 killed and probably x5 wounded.
If we were to follow the logic of some, we certainly would have bailed on June 6, 1944.
Comment by Ryan @ 12/19/2006 - 8:53 pm
I agree Ryan, if General Hillary or General Kerry were in power on June 6, 1944 we would of just packed up after the 1st wave.
Did you all hear the news today that Somalia is again completely controled by AQ?? The Bush Administration said it has no plans to go after AQ either. Huh, I have to wonder why we aren’t going after the people that did attack us on 9/11. Couldn’t be cuz the President is worn down by those who support the troops but not the mission.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?? The world may never know. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/19/2006 - 9:59 pm
Could it be that the president doesn’t really care at all about AQ?
You all can parse all you like. Clinton didn’t make this war, Bush did. Complaining about terminology won’t change the facts and certainly won’t change history. This is George’s war right down the line.
Comment by solitaire @ 12/20/2006 - 10:27 am
solitaire, this is OUR war whether you like it or not. Congress, including Clinton and Kerry, controls the funding, without which the Commander-in-Chief is powerless.
Comment by Tom TB @ 12/20/2006 - 11:40 am
So let me get this straight Solitaire. You can’t defend your stupidity, but you are happy to stay in it. Ok gotcha.
Thanks Much - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 12/20/2006 - 1:01 pm
Could it be that the president doesn’t really care at all about AQ?
And could it be that people like yourself couldn’t care less about the Iraqi people or our troops as you so valiantly claim? Or perhaps it’s just because you get to use it against him. Bush haters like yourself almost seem thrilled that things aren’t going well in Iraq. So what does that make you?
Comment by NC Cop @ 12/20/2006 - 5:52 pm