Hillary: I Didn't Vote for War

MANCHESTER – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq was "not a vote for a pre-emptive war," but instead a show of support for further United Nations weapons inspections.

The Democratic Presidential front-runner, who has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for not apologizing for the vote, emphasized that distinction in a telephone interview from Washington.

While fellow candidate John Edwards, a former senator, has apologized for his vote on the October 2002 resolution, Clinton again did not.

"I will let others speak for themselves," she said. "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."

She said that when she explained her vote four years ago, "I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war."

A Clinton campaign spokesman later noted that on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton stated that her vote for the resolution "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, 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 the throughout the world."

In the interview, the former first lady said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the current status of the war, she said, and for being "grossly misinformed" or for having "twisted the intelligence to satisfy a preconceived version of the facts" before the invasion.

"Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment," she said. "If they were so intent on pursuing military action, a pre-emptive action, which I said at the time I opposed, against Saddam Hussein, then why on earth were they not better prepared and more competent in its execution?"

Clinton said Bush and his administration "have performed a great disservice to our men and women in uniform, to our country, to our vital national security interests in the region and to the ongoing struggle against Islamic extremists."

Clinton spoke with the New Hampshire Union Leader on the eve of her first campaign visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state. She is scheduled to talk to voters today in Berlin and Concord and tomorrow in Manchester, Nashua and Keene. She last visited the state in 1996.

Also yesterday, Clinton said she would campaign in New Hampshire even if the primary date set by Secretary of State William Gardner under a state law does not comply with the Jan. 22, 2008, date written into a new party rule by Democratic National Committee (see related story).

Clinton said she has proposed capping the U.S. military force in Iraq at the Jan. 1 level and has "voted for more than a year and a half to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq."

She does not "at this time" support a cut in funding for American troops in Iraq. She backs instead a cut in funding for Iraqi troops.

"We have got to get their attention," she said of the Iraqi leadership. She said they "do not fulfill their promises" and make "worthless" assurances.

She predicted that if Congress were to approve a funding cut, Bush would veto it.

"I hate to say that," she said, "but I think that shows the level of stubbornness and rigidity that we are confronting with this President."

And what may have been veiled criticism of at least some of her Democratic opponents, Clinton said, "This is a very difficult situation we find ourselves in, and anyone who thinks there are easy answers or flip rhetoric that can be used is not fully appreciating the challenge that those of us confront who are trying to set up circumstances that will persuade the President to do what we all expect and want him to do."

Clinton did not say how she would have voted on New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg's proposed nonbinding Senate resolution simply opposing any cuts in troop funding. She said she backed a resolution by Republican Sen. John Warner and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin to oppose the Bush troop "surge" while also opposing a funding cut.

Bush, she said, "has proven impervious to the election results, so we are trying to get the political support we need in the Congress" to pass a strong anti-escalation statement in a nonbinding resolution.

She said the breakdown of efforts in the Senate this week to pass the Warner-Levin resolution was the result of "a Republican strategic decision to try to divert attention from doing that very straightforward task of sending a clear message to the White House."

She supported even stronger measures, saying, "The President should have to get a new congressional authorization if he is going to move down this path."

Clinton said that after the United Nations Security Council supported sending inspectors into Iraq in November 2002, "Saddam Hussein was contained and there was no reason not to let the inspectors finish their job to find answers to the questions many people had."

She said Congress' authorization a month earlier "did not necessarily require the President to short-circuit the process to launch the invasion," adding, "The abrupt conclusion of the inspection process, I think, was a mistake."

She said an earlier Bush mistake came when he "diverted attention from Afghanistan and the war against al-Qaida and the opportunity to build a strong international alliance against extremism and terrorism" and focused on Saddam.

She said had she been President, "I think I would never had asked for" authority to invade Iraq because she would not have begun the war.

Elaborating, she said: "But once a President asks for such authority, you either vote to give it to him or vote to withhold it from him. If you look at the options that were available, giving the President authority to make it very clear to the security council, to Iraq and to the world that we were serious about forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations under various United Nations' resolutions and the agreement he entered into at the end of the first Gulf War was a reasonable policy.

"What was not reasonable was manipulating the intelligence, which we now know occurred, and refusing to allow the inspectors under the edict of the United Nations to do their work."

The Washington Post reported yesterday that a Pentagon inspector general had found that intelligence provided by a former undersecretary of defense to buttress the White House case for the invasion included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials.

"This unfortunately confirms what we've been discovering in the last three years," Clinton said, "that the administration never intended to let the inspectors complete their work despite assurances to the contrary and that they gilded the lily on the intelligence they had."

Clinton said, "If we had known then what we know now about both the allegations concerning Saddam's intentions and capacity and about our own government's intentions, we would never have had a vote, and if there had been a vote, I certainly would never have voted to give the President authority," she said.

It's become the Washington way--bilaterally--cringingly initiate halfway measures and hope for the best. Too bad. "Halfway measures avail us nothing." And as I said before, "Hope is not a strategy." Domestic catfighting will be the downfall of this nation.

I doubt much of anybody actually read the authorization of force. It has some wording in it that should make most persons blood boil in anger. The bills being written today are purposely written is such a manner that the common citizen will likely not be able to sit down and fully understand meaning and intent. The lawyers took over congress as the wordings now prove.Sadly enough when any law makers stand up to correct these wrongs they are immediately labeled fringes or whackjobs by the status quo leaders in both parties.

Congress needs to be limited to basic simple and precise wording in the bills and resolutions it passes. To simplify matters even more eliminate the use of unrelated riders and attachments as well.

Many of the founders and framers who formed the nation were the most educated in words and meanings ones such as Noah Webster and Thomas Jefferson. Yet they purposely made the text of our documents basic so even a child in school could understand their meaning.

Not only did she vote for the war, "It is the policy of the Democratic Party to remove Saddam" according to an interview she gave with Russert....I think....about a week before we rumbled toward Iraq.

It's like the 2000 election. She was the FIRST to suggest the electoral college be abolished.......AFTER Bush had won the election.

She has the gift of hind sight....and it's BIG!!

This could be her Verrücktenfreude moment.

That was my tagline a few days ago:
Duncan Hunter just needs one jump-the-shark Verrücktenfreude moment by Hillary Clinton in 2007

But then Antoninus posted a cool pic of Hunter as Hercules defeating the 3-headed Cerberus RINO.

Tim Russert: "Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?"

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): "I doubt it ... I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it’s in the long-term interest of our national security." (NBC, "Meet the Press," 9/15/02)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.