Hillary Clinton and Her Vote for the IWR

[Stand and Fight]

There seems to be a bit of confusion over exactly what her position was in October of 2002. After reviewing her speech explaining her vote for the resolution, I am left with a deeper respect for the good Senator. Likewise, while it may be an unpopular position to take on DU, I do feel that most people and veterans would understand her line of thought in voting for authorization. As a recent veteran myself -- I got out in February 2004 -- I do not at all fault Senator Clinton for her vote on the resolution. Furthermore, I believe that she is wholly justified in NOT apologizing for her vote. I wholeheartedly agree with her that looking backward is not the approach we should take. Rather we should look forward and decide how to fix the problem that was caused by George W. Bush's irresponsible use of congressional approval. If possible, can we please discuss this issue in a manner befitting intelligent adults who are, after all is said and done, members of the same political flock.

What follows is the full text of Hillary Clinton's speech as given on the floor of the Senate on 10 October 2002. I have underlined what I feel are the relevant and revealing portions explaining her vote and my own comments are italicized:

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.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Let's be sure to remember this portion, as it because largely relevant in the aftermath of the invasion and even later on in this speech...

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

On this point, I am completely in agreement with HRC. These are facts that are well-known and well-documented within the public record.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

I can only speculate that Senator Clinton was misled by the intelligence reports that were coming out of our intelligence agencies; nonetheless, even at the time this intelligence was widely questioned by dissenting voices that turned out to be right about this issue and about the coming quagmire in Iraq. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton could have exercised better judgment in this matter, but if one continues reading the text of the speech it becomes more clear why she did not... More importantly, the next portion of the speech (all underlined by yours truly) are particularly revealing.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

The passage above is quite revealing in my mind. It is clear that Mrs. Clinton did not view her vote as an authorization to use force. This was indicative of the answer she gave in tonight's California debate with the honorable Barack Obama. It is my earnest belief that Senator Clinton gave a straight-forward answer to the question, as her answer tonight was right in line with the contents of this speech. Mrs. Clinton clearly did not view her vote as an authorization for this president to attack Iran -- she viewed it as congress leaving the responsibility in the lap of the president. President Bush choose to use this power in a way that is clearly contrary to the purpose of Mrs. Clinton's vote. This is backed up by the next underlined portion....

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

The emphasized (underlined) portion makes it clear that Hillary Clinton was not -- in her mind -- voting for authorization to use force. It is high time that this myth be done away with once and for all. Mrs. Clinton was advocating a reasonable approach and giving the president the benefit of the doubt -- that he would ultimately do the right thing. It is not Mrs. Clinton's fault --based upon the premise of her speech -- that President Bush chose to act contrary to her thoughts. Therefore, it seems to me, that when Senator Clinton says had she been president there would have been no attack on Iraq, I COMPLETELY believe her. Unlike Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton did not have the luxury of being able to say later that she would have voted against the resolution. She was very much in the public spotlight. Had Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and -- given her view of her vote -- used said weapons after inspections had been conducted, Mrs. Clinton voting in opposition would have been disastrous and political suicide to boot. This is spelled out in no uncertain terms in the next paragraph....

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton was clearly against President Bush taking unilateral action in Iraq. It is clear that she believed -- wrongly -- that the intelligence indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he intended on using them. Senator Clinton viewed this as a particularly vital issue. It was imperative that something be done about Saddam Hussein because failure to do so could very well mean that weapons of mass destruction would get into the hands of terrorists. As I see it this is the measured response of mature leadership that this country so desperately needs -- the sort of leadership that has been wholly absent from the Bush administration.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. 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.

This last passage is the most disheartening for me as a former soldier. I am somewhat disappointed that Mrs. Clinton showed a certain kind of nativity by extending so much trust to President Bush. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that given the fact that the wounds of September 11th remained fresh, it is no wonder that Mrs. Clinton -- and the majority of Democrats were willing to trust the president. She acknowledges that the resolution is not EXACTLY what she wants, she decided to go forward with an affirmative vote. Was this a mistake? Perhaps. Was it a lapse in judgment, a bit too trustful? Yes. However, that is the benefit of hindsight -- we can so easily say what we would have done. We must take into account that Senator Clinton was privy to information that simply was not made available to the public, and despite this, she still took the responsible role of suggesting moderation in regards to Iraq. She cannot be held accountable for Mr. Bush's utter lack of seasoned and mature judgment and leadership.

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, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

"...war less likely..." Think about that for a minute, folks. Senator Clinton clearly did not see her vote as an authorization to go to war. She saw it as an authorization for the president to pursue a more aggressive diplomatic stance with the United Nations. Senator Clinton even says in the next line that this is the hardest decision she has ever had to make because she acknowledges that it could lead to war. However strong her conviction may have been, she clearly saw her vote as an authorization -- not to go to war -- but to be able to pursue more aggressive diplomacy in the interest of building a stronger coalition should the use of force become necessary IF inspections did not work.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

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. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Let those words sink in people -- especially those who have accused Senator Clinton of voting for this resolution on the basis that it was to go to war. "My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism..."

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

Senator Clinton is urging President Bush to seek unlimited inspections BEFORE pursuing the use of force. President Bush did not heed this sage advice.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests 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 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.

"...use these powers wisely AND as a LAST RESORT."

Thank you, Mr. President.

Now, what say you, DU?

EDITED TO ADD: Can I shamelessly ask for recommendations so more people see this? I believe discussing this issue is of vital importance and would help to dispel the innuendo and slander that permeates the discussion of Senator Clinton's stance on this issue. Thanks!