[See her original speech in 2002 here, including a distasteful connection to 9/11. Typical having it both way, pure CYA.]
"I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq.
"When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war," the former first lady said.
She said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the status of the war, she said, and for being "grossly misinformed" or for having "twisted the intelligence to satisfy a pre-conceived version of the facts."
-- Hillary Clinton's CYA
Sorry, no. My basic thought, like the majority of the Democratic Caucus in Congress,* was that the resolution was a bad idea. They voted against it. The second in command, so to speak, in the current U.S. Senate (Dick Durbin) voted against it. Sen. Graham, who knew more than most about the available intelligence, voted against it. Top military guy Sen. Levin voted against it. A few Republicans voted against it. This idea that somehow it was pretty ridiculous to think it reasonable that the resolution would not toss the car keys to the drunk or not likely lead to war, was shall we say naive.
This is so especially given (1) war should be dealt with warily and (2) trusting Bush in October 2002 ... when at the very least many should have know the timing of the resolution itself was dubious (and this was not the only reason to be wary) ... was stupid. We are supposed to accept DLC sorts like Clinton because though they are somewhat more conservative, they are realistic sorts, not wild-eyed idealists like those Deanites. But, damn, do Clinton defenders come off as naive morons. Wah!! He lied to us! Wah! No way of knowing! Oh, give me a break.
What was the NAME of the resolution? "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." Who determined if such force was necessary? The president: "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Necessary and appropriate to what end? 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." But, wait! The point was to give the President an edge when he went to the U.N., and to show Saddam Hussein that we meant business! Bush abused the power!
But, was it "not a vote for pre-emptive war?" What authority was given? Again, a look at the actual resolution, not what individual senators wanted it to mean, is useful. Let's remember that something with a bit more teeth was quite possible. Something that gave Congress more of a check that it would not be used to go further than people like Clinton (and Kerry) said they wanted it to go. Say, a second vote. Or, more stringent language. Such an alternative WAS offered. Let's look at what did pass. The President, on his judgment, needs to inform the leadership of Congress (by then both Republicans) within forty eight hours of use of force that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
By giving him this authority, by definition, we were not trusting in the actions of the U.N. alone. So, the fact -- but he promised! -- that Bush ignored the majority of the Security Council is not really conclusive. The resolution gave HIM the final determination. Yes, he was made the decider. And, darn -- the flowery whereas clauses included -- he had a pretty thin line to cross here. "Adequately protect?" What the hell does that mean? And, what exactly "is consistent" (#2) supposed to mean? Sure, it turned out to be quite dubious, especially the "evidence" available of WMDs, but that is a pretty low bar. And, that is btw really a misplaced complaint -- that is a reason (whereas clause, and there were others) for the power, not part of the actual authorization. A fair criticism, if one others saw pass at the time (also often forgotten and damning to the judgment of others), but again, the why, not the what.
Again, looking at the resolution itself. So sorry. The resolution DID authorize a preemptive war. It did not demand it, surely. But, the power was there for the taking. Did Bush use lousy judgment? Sure. But, the Congress cannot refuse to accept some liability here -- the power was GIVEN to him to use that lousy judgment. Hoping it would not be so aside. If there was not real fear that it would come out badly, why did a majority of the Democrats -- including some top names -- vote against it?
Finally, let's say that the power was not given. Hmm. He misused an authorization to go to war. Darn, that is horrible. Clinton should have been on the front lines demanding justice, from the beginning. Now, Kerry did voice strong concern, real impressive really (as in of no real value), right away. Not sure Clinton did. But, anyway, if the President went to war on false pretenses, twisting the intel along the way, that's IMPEACHABLE. I put it in caps, since apparently, she does not think so. It is seen as a somewhat bad thing, more or less, but just a bad judgment.
Which is sort of damning actually ... the implication was that it was just that ... handling authority badly. IOW, again, the authority was there! YOU VOTED FOR IT! So sorry. You are not getting my primary vote. At least, Edwards -- who was on the front lines with Lieberman at the time so is no saint -- admitted error. Not saying I will vote for him either, after all, he already got two of my votes. I'm not an idiot, so if Clinton makes it to November, I will likely vote for her then. Doubtful the Republican would be better -- Hagel voted for it and voted for the filibuster too, and he is the best of the lot.
But, I'm sick of this shit. Not just Clinton but those who defend her, usually making it all Bush's fault. Oh shut up. Please shut up. I explained myself, so this is not just an O'Reilly (and said "please"), but I stick by it. Enablers who theoretically should know better are pretty low in my book.
---
* The votes were 296-133 and 77-23. Only one Republican senator nay vote, Dems controlling Senate by same vote as now. In the House, 81D for, 126 against. Doing the math, yes Virginia, "everyone" did not support the President. A majority of the Democratic Caucus did not. The fact most of them were representatives does not change things. It just damns the Senate a bit more. But, Congress authorizes war, not the Senate alone.