Hillary's latest Iraq War vote excuse

Well, she finally made my head explode with yet another "explanation" of her vote on the Iraq War Resolution--formally known, let's recall, as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. First, from Wikipedia, a description of the resolution:

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

[My emphasis]
--wikipedia

More follows...

So what does Hillary say now?

Clinton reaffirmed her vote to authorize the US invasion of Iraq, saying she believed at the time it was a vote to send in weapons inspectors rather than to launch immediate military action.

"I'm more than willing to be held accountable for it, because that's the way it is in life. You are judged on your actions," she said.

[My emphasis.]
Boston Globe/AP story

Have I gone insane or is this yet another version of what she "believed" at the time? As for sending in weapons inspectors, if that was her concern then why did she vote against the Levin Amendment?

The Levin Amendment
Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Defeated 24 - 75.

--wikipedia

Time for another Jed Report...

•  Yep, seems pretty self-explanatory. n/t

  by NWTerriD on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:04:10 AM PDT

•  her own 2002 speech belies this latest BS...

  first sentence:

  Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

  but if that weren't enough:

  Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

  turns out, it was just her personal thought, and she apparently decided once uttered, bush would magically obey her.

  so, she now claims a highly reminiscent (of bush) ignorance of her own vote.

  but this is the piece de resistance of HRC's 2002 speech - the very clear reason she voted for this, in my opinion, and the reason i will not vote for her in any capacity.  first, her selling point of unique experience and perhaps privileged information to her peers, but then an even more sinister statement... that she intentionally made way for the unitary executive.  here it is:

  And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war.

  that statement, as they say, was a career move.

  by jj24 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:14:34 AM PDT

  •  Yep. Strongest Possible Position = Tyrant n/t

    by spotDawa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:17:46 AM PDT

•  Weaseling out of things

  is what separates us from the animals--except the weasel. (Homer Simpson)

  by notksanymore on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:45:42 AM PDT

•  More attempted history rewriting. n/t

  by boran2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:09:31 AM PDT

  •  Yep, WMD Inspections Were Ongoing In

    Iraq at the time of invasion.  Bush/Cheney ended inspections and invaded, precisely because inspections were exposing their WMD claims to be a lie:  

    As a result of the U.S. and British campaign, and after prolonged negotiations between the United States, Britain, France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members, the United Nations declared that Iraq would have to accept even more intrusive inspections than under the previous inspection regime - to be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - or face "serious consequences." Iraq agreed to accept the U.N. decision and inspections resumed in late November 2002. On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted its 12,000 page declaration, which claimed that it had no current WMD programs. Intelligence analysts from the United States and other nations immediately began to scrutinize the document, and senior U.S. officials quickly rejected the claims. (Note 2)

    Over the next several months, inspections continued in Iraq, and the chief inspectors, Hans Blix (UNMOVIC) and Mohammed El Baradei (IAEA) provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities, and declared that if it continued along that path, "serious consequences" - that is, invasion - should follow.

    The trigger for military action preferred by the British government, other allies, and at least some segments of the Bush administration, was a second U.N. resolution that would authorize an armed response. Other key U.N. Security Council members - including France, Germany, and Russia - argued that the inspections were working and that the inspectors should be allowed to continue. When it became apparent that the Council would not approve a second resolution, the United States and Britain terminated their attempts to obtain it. Instead, they, along with other allies, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003 - a military campaign that quickly brought about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime and ultimately resulted in his capture. (Note 3) Source: National Archives

     Hillary, caught in another major lie!

    by leonard145b on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:23:58 AM PDT

•  She can admit to Bosnia but not this

  So lying about sniper fire is the type of mistake that you can own up to but had HRC been sincere and apologized for her vote, she might be winning now. The fact is that she has spent the entire campaign coming up with an excuse du jour about why she voted for the war.

  by Dirk McQuigley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:22:39 AM PDT

  •  In Fact, Hillary Arrogantly Said This:

    "I have to say, if the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."  
    Source: ABC News Blog

     

    by leonard145b on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:29:33 AM PDT

    •  Which is why she's losing

      and he's winning.

      by second gen on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:20:12 AM PDT

•  Sounds fine to me.....

  "I'm more than willing to be held accountable for it, because that's the way it is in life. You are judged on your actions," she said.

  I am more than happy to judge her on her actions.

  by Azdak on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:50:01 AM PDT

  •  OK, we hold her accountable. What happens now?

    I'm reminded of Jon Stewart's take on Rumsfeld's testimony about Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld said the chain of command led to him, so he took full responsibility. And then he went back to work, and nothing changed.

    So -- being held accountable or responsible has no consequences. They're just meaningless posturings.

    by gotgat54 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM PDT

•  AUMF

  "Um, did not authorize, was about diplomacy, not the military, and had nothing to do with force."

  They're betting our brains have been turned to mush by 7 years of Through-the-Looking-Glass statements from Fleischer, Snow, and Perino.

  by kay dub on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:15:52 AM PDT

•  What part of "Use of Military Force of Iraq"

  does she not understand.  The words were in the fucking title of the bill: "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq."  How stupid does she think we are.  

  by ecostar on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

•  Other reason why she's lying with this:

  You're right about the IWR giving Bush a blanck check authorization. Hence her excuse (that it was a vote for "getting the UN inspectors in") is literally false.

  Furthermore, it's also a lie as an excuse. The reason for that is that the UN inspectors were already reporting in early March that the claims about WMD and nuclear programs (made to make the "case" for war both in the IWR and the public pronouncements by the hawks) were being found baseless. Yet, HRC cheerleading the war.
  
  Exhibit A: The UN inspectors said:

  March 7, 2003
  Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA: After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq.

  Dr. Hans Blix, Chief U.N. weapons inspector: How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

  UN Inspector Videos. March 2003.

  
  

  1. ElBaradei's U.N. presentation Part 1

  2. ElBaradei's U.N. presentation Part 2

  3. Blix's U.N. presentation Part 1

  4. Blix's U.N. presentation Part 2

  (H/T lovingj)

  
  Exhibit B: Hillary Clinton's press release:

  March 17, 2003

  Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the President's Remarks to the Nation

  When the President of the United States addresses the nation about possible military action, it is a solemn occasion for every American. Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.

  Exhibit C: The Bush ultimatum that Clinton was refering to was this:

  Bush: 'Leave Iraq within 48 hours'

  Monday, March 17, 2003

  All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.

  Which proves that Hillary Clinton was cheerleading Bush into an invasion, instead of demanding Bush not to invade in light of the evidence coming from the UN inspectors.

  There's also this video from early March (UN reports started coming in in late Feb):
  
  Video Link

  by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:49:46 AM PDT

  •  See the 2nd link in my sigline

    for more material on the subject. Thanks.

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:50:13 AM PDT

  •  Thank you

    for that excellent update to my rather hasty diary. I don't normally write them but HRC's latest statement just infuriated me. And why the Boston Glob™ didn't bother to correct her (or at least note her previous explanations, shifting like the sands in the desert) dismays but doesn't surprise me.

    by Paolo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM PDT