Why Should Hillary Apologize On Iraq?

Refusal To Recant '02 Vote May Serve Clinton Well In The Long Run

(CBS) 
"I take responsibility for my vote. It was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances we had at the time. Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now," she responded.

Clinton has introduced legislation aimed at stopping the president's proposed troop "surge" and begin a phased redeployment as the first steps toward ending the war in Iraq. And she has added a pledge to her stump speech to end the war as president if the U.S. is still involved there in January 2009. But her refusal to apologize continues to gobble up the headlines.

It seems like an easy request to fulfill — unless you're a Democratic candidate who already has one eye on the general election. Since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party has, fairly or not, been at a political disadvantage on issues of national security. A quick trip through just recent history reminds us that, when it comes to war, Democrats have a habit of stepping on their own feet.

In 1991, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved the resolution authorizing the first Gulf War by a vote of 52 to 47. Just 10 Democrats joined all but two Republicans in approving a war which would prove to be relatively short and successful — not to mention wildly popular at the time. Even though the euphoria quickly faded and a Democrat recaptured the White House in 1992, the memory of that opposition lingered.

The experience was something that almost certainly lurked in the back of the minds of Democratic Senators in 2002, when the current Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress sought similar approval shortly before that year's midterm election. In the wake of 9/11 and military successes in Afghanistan, the politically safe move was to support the war. Given the intelligence presented at the time, it appeared to many the right thing to do as well.

It was no surprise then that 29 Democrats joined all but one Republican in authorizing the use of force that led to the current conflict. Now that the intelligence has been discredited and the U.S. bogged down fighting an insurgency and sectarian violence, members of both parties have publicly regretted their votes.

Increasingly, the American public views the decision to invade Iraq as a mistake and Clinton is being badgered for an apology. What Democrats may be missing, however, is the opportunity to capture the public's confidence on national security matters.

Over the past year and a half, Democrats have eaten away at the GOP's once huge advantage on national security. Whether they can capitalize on those gains is a question that will be largely answered in the course of this campaign. A stampede to placate the vocal anti-war activists in their party won't help them break out of perceptions of the past.

Looking at the actual positions of the presidential candidates, Clinton and the rest of the field are not far apart on Iraq. They are all harshly critical of how the administration sold it, both to the public and the Congress, of the way it has been conducted, and they all want it to end. Still, there remains an insistence for purity. Barack Obama is "pure" on Iraq because he didn't have to vote on the war and because he opposed it from the beginning. Others have had their sins washed away via public apology.

In the primary season, where purity sells best, it's easy and advantageous to say "sorry." But it was also politically popular to support the war in the first place.

By refusing to capitulate, at least so far, Clinton is betting electability will beat purity in the end. She said as much in her last trip to New Hampshire where she flatly told Democrats, "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. But for me, the most important thing now is trying to end this war."

Her advisers speak about the fear of being put in a "box" when it comes to Iraq. What they're really saying is they fear being labeled weak against an eventual Republican nominee, especially if that opponent turns out to be war hero John McCain or 9/11 hero Rudy Giuliani.

Clinton's gender doubles the fear of that "box." Polls aside, there are concerns that American voters won't put a woman in the position to make decisions about war. If she courts anti-war activists by apologizing for giving a president the authority, would she be willing to seek such power as president? It's a perception problem she would like to avoid.

Will Clinton be able to avoid the big apology? Many analysts, and many Democrats have said they don't think so.

But in their quest to find purity among their candidates on Iraq, party activists may want to remember what one relatively unknown candidate said about the 1991 Gulf War vote. The then-governor commented, "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." That was Bill Clinton, both agreeing and disagreeing with his own party's position on that war. He moved into the White House just over a year later.

[ihatebush1]

I think I may be a little late on this...

But if you really support the troops please watch "American Soldiers: A Day In Iraq".

I was able to watch this movie on the internet web site "Vongo". You may be able to find it in Blockbuster.

[tuckerndfw]

Hillary Clinton is a US Senator.

Presumably, all US Senators had access to the information concerning the flawed intelligence provided by the CIA funded Iraqi National Congress and the Defense Department's hastily invented Office of Special Plans supervised by D. Rumsfeld and his staff.

Any Senator who did not closely scrutinize the intelligence they used as a basis for authorizing use of force should at a minimum, apologize for their gross dereliction of duty.

And, since the resolution did not actually authorize the use of force without another UN Security Council resolution authorizing use of force, she should at least step forward and say so.

Since she has not, it appears she doesn't even know what she voted for.

Hillary is little different than George Bush. The primary differences being she has testicles and cannot win a national election.

[Razzl]

Polls show the public already believes Democrats will do a better job on national security than the Republicans, so all your analysis from ancient history (which is mostly drawn from the stereotype and myth the Republicans have been peddling the last 40 years, not the reality) is already moot.

And as far as litmus test, Hillary can say what she wants, and as a voter I can reject her because her beliefs don't mirror mine on the subject of Iraq. So it looks like the candidates and the voters are all fine on our relationship and only you old-school media guys continue to get irritated at the public for not following your prescribed path to enlightenment...

[frankly6]

The media attacks on Hillary are starting early.

[dallison7]

I watched some of the democratic candidates being interviewed on CSPAN last night. It would appear that we have a field of not only bright, but also decent cntenders this time. Hillary was actually, in my opinion, the lesser of the group. I was impressed with Christopher Dodd, that's the first time I have ever really listened to him, but John Edwards will probably get my vote.

[rafterman1]

Why should Hilary (or anyone for that matter) apologize for their Iraq vote? At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Who knew it was a vote built on deceit?

[luvny-2009]

dallison7 - I like Edwards also but the people in NC don't seem to but the LOVE Elizabeth Dole

[ihatebush1]

Does anyone believe we are winning the war on terror?

The number of people who have a sworn hatred for us have increased exponentially.

I know we really don't care. But it's our arrogance that will cost us.

The rest of the world does matter.

[hawksprings]

Hey Rafterman, who's deceit are you talking about? Hillary said she was voting for the war not based on the current administration's info, but her own personal research into the matter. In 1998 Bill Clinton said Saddam has WMDs and must be stopped.

So are you referring to Slick Willy's deception? You must be.

[dallison7]

dallison7 - I like Edwards also but the people in NC don't seem to but the LOVE Elizabeth Dole
Posted by luvNY

The difference is Edwards is in the race and Edwards is not a republican. No republican has any chance of becoming president in 2008. The republican party should save their money and forfeit.

[formrusmcsgt]

Personally, I hope Hillary never admits that she made a mistake. Doing so will liken her to Bill who lost face as much for his refusing to be honest and admit he did Lewinsky as he did for doing her.

The Dems have much better than Hillary to offer America.....

[dallison7]

Whichever democratic candidate gets the nomination, a winning campaign slogan can be four simple words, "I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN".

[forthepeaple]

to rafterman1, that would be like someone handing you a loaded gun than you pull the trigger then the bullet hits someone and kills that person. and all you can say is i didn't think that would happen. they all knew. and she knew it wasn't true from the start. remember her husband was the president and if you think they dont talk then you need to go back to school. and now look at what they are useing to fight us over there chemicals that you know is comeing from iran,so why are we still trying to talk to this nut.

[motherjones-2009]

I will vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but, I too prefer John Edwards. He embodies authentic Democratric ideals. My main concern about Edwards is that he's too nice. He allowed Cheney to roll over him during the vice presidential debate in 2004. Cheney lied through his snarling teeth, and Edwards sat there smiling at him. I guess it's commendable to be respectful toward your elders in most cases, but not when the elder is a dispecable scumbag.

[tuckerndfw]

Why should Hilary (or anyone for that matter) apologize for their Iraq vote? At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do. Who knew it was a vote built on deceit?


Posted by Rafterman1 at 10:17 AM : Feb 22, 2007


Congressmen are paid to study issues. And supervise government agencies. They even have taxpayer provided staffs to do just that.

There is no more serious issue than voting for the use of military force against another nation.

It has very slowly dribbled out in the media that the Iraqi National Congress was a CIA front organization that was tasked with manufacturing intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq.

Same for the Office of Special Plans that D. Rumsfeld created for the same purpose.

Taxpayers can be forgiven for not paying attention to those details, but congressmen cannot.

Any congressmen who was unaware that the Bush administration was actively manufacturing phony intelligence was derelict in his duties.

Hillary Clinton should not only apologize for that gross misconduct bordering on malfeasance in office, she should step down as a presidential candidate.

She is either totally dishonest and knew, or totally incompetent if she did not know.

She owes far more than an apology in my view, she should resign from office due to her incompetence and/or negligence.

[changeit4]

dallison7, I'd like to agree with you about the Republicans' not having a chance in '08, but I'm not so sure. With all of this attention coming to the Democrats so early in the running, the GOP knows that it's the Democrats' race to lose, and they're betting that they will by running their mouths.

The Democrats need to walk softer and talk less at this point in the game and let the Republicans finish beating themselves to death with their own lying, warmongering, greedy stick. As it stands, fear is at a fever pitch, and Republicans will pounce on any remotely potential reason the Democrats give voters to be scared.

[forthepeaple]

look i know this much. if we have to stay to make sure our oil interst stays then all our troops should be doing is guard duty around that whole country. they should surround that country and just sit back and watch them kill themselves. we shouldn't be helping with it. let no one in and no one out thats what we should be doing. end of story..

[tuckerndfw]

I am an independent who voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in my life in 2004. And, I did so based on the same (false) assumption that George Bush could not possibly win if opposition voters stood together.

For those of you claiming any Democrat will win in 2008 based on nothing more than "I'm not a Republican," I strongly encourage you to revisit that idea.

John Kerry, like Hillary Clinton, seemed to think his name and the fact he was not a Republican would win the election.

I am telling you now that if Dems are stupid enough to nominate her, Republicans will win the election.

I would not vote for Hillary Clinton regardless who the Repubs choose.

Hillary Clinton is no different than George Bush. She is a pathological liar, incredibly self-serving, ambitious to the point that if she is elected, she would attempt to widen the powers of the executive office even further than Bush, if possible.

I'm not sure how you can increase the power of an office that claims it can legally do whatever it wants. And, there is nothing anyone, including congress or the courts, can do about it.

But, Hillary cannot win a national election no matter what she does short of somehow instigating a military coup.

[formrusmcsgt]

I am telling you now that if Dems are stupid enough to nominate her, Republicans will win the election.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:04 AM : Feb 22, 2007

I would agree. Hillary is the most unelectable of the announced Dem contenders so far.

The Repubs could only lose to Hillary if they were to put up Cheney as their candidate.

[forthepeaple]

the bill of rights states the following.That whenever any FORM of Goverment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Poeple to Alter or Abolish it, and to institute a new Goverment. so we the people do have a choice. the Constitution also states that the house of Representation has the SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. SO WHY HASN'T ANYONE GROWN A PAIR AND START THIS PROCESS

[mitywhity]

You got it all wrong. This wench will win because she has never had to be accountable for anything. She has shed every accusation like it was water off a duck's back. In the light of evidence and the evidence of destroyed or intentionally "misplaced" evidence in various scandals, she and her man have emerged unscathed and even the staringer for it. It's like an "Omen" type "Twilight Zone" thing going on around her life to me. When I watched the "Manchurian Candidate" the other day I couldn't get Hillary out of my mind. Salute your president folks - Hillary Rodham Clinton!

[formrusmcsgt]

the Constitution also states that the house of Representation has the SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT. SO WHY HASN'T ANYONE GROWN A PAIR AND START THIS PROCESS
Posted by forthepeaple at 11:11 AM : Feb 22, 2007

Do the math, forthepeople, and you can answer your own question.

The Dems have a 51-49 majority in the Senate (if you think you can count Lieberman as a Dem) and will not get the 60 votes required for a conviction.

Failing to impeach Bush would be an endorsement of sorts for the administration. The Dems are not about to give Bush any kind of endorsement.

[mitywhity]

I too prefer John Edwards. He embodies authentic Democratric ideals

What, waffling? Poll-sniffing? Why can't he be consistent? He tells Israel that Iran under no circumstances must be allowed to develop nukes. H ecomes back here and says something completely different. He has nice hair, but it's not enough.

[bigwhtpony]

Democrats are just dishonest. They had the same intelligence reports as Bush did, and I even heard them espousing all the same rhetoric Bush used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

For them to now say they were "duped" ala Edwards, Clinton, etc., is the height of dishonesty. But anyone with half a brain knows these liberal democrats have no character.

Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Joe Liberman, these are democrats with honor and character. I could support any one of them.

[notblue]

Could not agree more with you bigwhitepony, but this is an area where we are greatly outnumbered and hated, the truth is something that is not important if it does not fit the hate Bush, hate America leftwing mold.

[forthepeaple]

I AGREE I THOUGHT OF THAT TO BUT I THINK ONCE SOMEONES STARTS OR I WOULD LIKE TO SAY PULL THE TRIGGER, I THINK ANYONE THAT DOESN'T GO THROUGH IT AND IMPEACHS THEM BOTH WOULD LOSE THERE JOBS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD VOTE THAT WAY. AND THEY WOULD MAKE SURE THERE SEN AND REPS VOTE TO IMPEACH. DONT YOU THINK THAT WAY TO OR IS THIS WISHFUL THINKING

[formrusmcsgt]

For them to now say they were "duped" ala Edwards, Clinton, etc., is the height of dishonesty. But anyone with half a brain knows these liberal democrats have no character.
Posted by bigwhtpony at 11:27 AM : Feb 22, 2007

And what would you call presenting deliberately "monkeyed-up intel", bigwhitepony?

An example of exemplary character?

[mitywhity]

Zell Miller, Sam Nunn - fine Georgia boys! Go Dawgs!

[formrusmcsgt]

Could not agree more with you bigwhitepony, but this is an area where we are greatly outnumbered and hated, the truth is something that is not important if it does not fit the hate Bush, hate America leftwing mold.
Posted by notblue at 11:30 AM : Feb 22, 2007

You are the last one here with a right to complain about people not dealing in fact, notblue.

You espouse propaganda and when presented with facts that contradict your peopaganda, you act like it's a joke.

Give me a break.....

[formrusmcsgt]

And why do you think you neocons are outnumbered, notblue? Because that as well is a fact. Only 27% think your idol has his head on straight.

[huskerarmy]

"Democrats are just dishonest. They had the same intelligence reports as Bush did, and I even heard them espousing all the same rhetoric Bush used as an excuse to invade Iraq."

Whitey, Don't you think your statement is in fact "dishonest?" The Dems had the intelligence that Bush wanted them to have. Bush and his cronies were in control of the intelligence and we now know that the intelligence was "fabricated" and "cherry picked." The intelligence that was presented to the Dems had been customized to fit the Bush agenda. Now you want to declare the liars the heros and those who were mislead, You'll have to include the majority of the American people, "dishonest." Your spin is just another form of lying.

[huskerarmy]

"For them to now say they were "duped" ala Edwards, Clinton, etc., is the height of dishonesty."

White phony, If you are ever presented with phony information on which you are required to make decisions, I sincerely hope you make the right ones. But if not, don't you dare have the nads to complain about it...

[formrusmcsgt]

huskerarmy-

If bigwhitepony were to be convicted on false testimony, I have a feeling his perception might change.....

[forthepeaple]

HEY SGT,PRIOR SGT ALSO. ANYWAY I WOULD THINK JUST THE FABRICATION OF INTELLIGENCE WOULD BE ANOUGH TO IMPEACH BOTH OF THEM PLUS GET THE REAL BOSS OF BOTH OF THEM RUMSFELD...

[formrusmcsgt]

HEY SGT,PRIOR SGT ALSO. ANYWAY I WOULD THINK JUST THE FABRICATION OF INTELLIGENCE WOULD BE ANOUGH TO IMPEACH BOTH OF THEM PLUS GET THE REAL BOSS OF BOTH OF THEM RUMSFELD...
Posted by forthepeaple at 11:57 AM : Feb 22, 2007

I do not argue the justification, only that the Dems do not have the votes in the Senate.

Hell, they couldn't even muster enough votes last Saturday to debate Iraq. What makes you think they'd get the votes for impeachment?

[calliope6]

From late 2002 until 2005, some 70% of ALL Americans polled said they supported the war and believed that Saddam was a serious threat to US security. Now support for the war and belief in the actual threat posed by Saddam is at an all time low. Which means that millions of Americans who were gung ho for war now realize they were duped by Bush. So when Hillary is hounded for her vote, the press and politicans are in fact hounding and insulting all those millions of Americans who were in the same boat. These people will support Hillary MORE, through being able to identify with her

[forthepeaple]

BECAUSE THEY LIKE THERE JOBS THEY LIKE POWER AND I THINK WHO EVER WOULD STAND UP AND START THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD GET THE HIGHEST SEAT IN THIS COUNTRY. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DEMS OR REPS THE ONE WHO STEPS UP WILL BE VOTED IN AS OR NEXT PRESIDENT

[formrusmcsgt]

BECAUSE THEY LIKE THERE JOBS THEY LIKE POWER AND I THINK WHO EVER WOULD STAND UP AND START THE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT WOULD GET THE HIGHEST SEAT IN THIS COUNTRY. AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DEMS OR REPS THE ONE WHO STEPS UP WILL BE VOTED IN AS OR NEXT PRESIDENT
Posted by forthepeaple at 12:04 PM : Feb 22, 2007

Again, a failed impeachment effort would be an endorsement of sorts for the administration. The Dems are not about to give this administration any sort of endorsement.

[gangesdak]

As far as I remember, Bush kind of goaded the Democrats into voting for invading Iraq, because the Democrats were scared stiff in those days not to be following the Commander-in-Chief in the aftermath of 911. Even at the time of voting for invading Iraq there was serous doubts, I remember, whether Saddam was involded in 911 diaster. The hype in those days was that Saddam was a despot having his own people gassed to death. Since he was proved to be such a sinner (Sinner of the Day), everyone OKd teaching him a lesson. His connections to terrorism was not the story at that time. Everyone-Prez, Democrats, Republicans and the reverend news media- were unanimous that Saddam had committed a sin against humanity; he has to go. That voting was done out of fear for their own skin. I am happy that Edwards and others admitted their "mistake" (though action out of fear cannot really be called a mistake). Hillary cannot just shift the responsibility of bungling Iraq invation to bush, she should admit her past mistake and prove her inner strength.

[huskerarmy]

"If bigwhitepony were to be convicted on false testimony, I have a feeling his perception might change....."

Sarge, We can only hope. But until then unfortunately we have to remember that one of the tenets of the right is that bad things (e.g.-Katrina) only happen to bad people.

[formrusmcsgt]

These people will support Hillary MORE, through being able to identify with her
Posted by calliope6 at 12:02 PM : Feb 22, 2007

I disagree. I think most will associate her refusal to admit a mistake with those in history who have erred but were not honest enough to admit it....like Nixon amd her husband.

[perception5]

OK let's settle this..........the FACT is Congress has the oversite for the CIA and FBI.
EVERYONE had access to the same information both on Capital Hill and the White House.......the fact of the matter is....... both the White House and Congress were provided "information" that was wrong..........period!! ...... no one needs to apologize for that.
This conspiracy has no "foundation" because the same bad/wrong information was provided to:
France
Germany
Italy
Britain
Russians
...........etc......etc...... by "their" own spy agencies........
.... unless someone is saying that somehow our President convinced these countries to lie for him.............and I don't think that France would have ..............end of conspriacy!
Our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack could have "debunked" this lie years ago......but they're not big fans of this "conservative Republican" administration.........in case no one has noticed........

[forthepeaple]

THEN BESIDE THE AMERICANS JUST TAKE CONTROL THE HARD WAY. WHAT DO WE AS AMERICANS DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES. BECAUSE NO ONE IN OUR GOVERMENT IS LISTING TO US THE AMERICANS. SO WHAT COURSE OF ACTION SHOULD WE AS AMERICANS DO

[formrusmcsgt]

Our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack could have "debunked" this lie years ago......but they're not big fans of this "conservative Republican" administration.........in case no one has noticed........
Posted by perception5 at 12:09 PM : Feb 22, 2007

See "Downing Street Memeo".....

[formrusmcsgt]

THEN BESIDE THE AMERICANS JUST TAKE CONTROL THE HARD WAY. WHAT DO WE AS AMERICANS DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES. BECAUSE NO ONE IN OUR GOVERMENT IS LISTING TO US THE AMERICANS. SO WHAT COURSE OF ACTION SHOULD WE AS AMERICANS DO
Posted by forthepeaple at 12:11 PM : Feb 22, 2007

Elect non-dictatorial persons and stop using all CAPS!

[huskerarmy]

Gangesdak, You are right about the environment at the time, and that may partially explain why some voted the way they did. But the primary reason given for invading Iraq was WMD's. Remember those aluminum tubes that were presented as "weapons grade" evidence only to be later exposed as low grade, commercial? The government officials and weapons analysts who tried to tell the administration that these were not in fact weapons grade were gagged and/or sanctioned.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3312

[mitywhity]

She is senator Eleanor Prentiss-Shaw!

[mitywhity]

Barack Obama is Raymond Prentiss Shaw

[aaabee-2009]

Why does Hilary have to say she's sorry.
She voted with the information in front of her, just like everyone in the Senate.

If the information was skewed, how could she or anyone else in the Senate know, by mind reading?

Those who provided skewed information are not apologizing. And Hilary has to? She has and will continue to explain her stance on the war. People will continue to ride her on it. But she at least, when given more information, was able to revise her stance on the war and correct her position.

There are a few in WA who cannot and will not correct or revise their stance, whatever the information dictates.

Hilary is one out of many. Make all apologize, included the providers of the mis-disinformation or let the issue drop. No double standards just for Mrs. Clinton.

[motherjones-2009]

MITYWHITY

If Hillary Clinton has "shed accusations" along the way, it is because said accusations were baseless and fabricated by crazed Clinton enemies. Like when she was accused of looting the White House, taking truck loads of valuables. GAO investigations showed the allegations were false and actually Reagan and Bush the First were the ones who went home with vast amounts of treasure.

If you don't like waffling, have you considered resigning from the repub party. Just why did we invade Iraq again? What about those WMDs we found! Oh, yeah, right....never mind.