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.

[btans1]

Rep. or Dem.... samey same My problem with them is that most of them are plain stupid...What eles would you call someone who voted to send the cream America's youth to a war that was at best illadvised and at worst illmoral...whether you were "led astray" or are just an IDIOT the result is too many empty spaces at the dinner table...

[cristyb01]

Hillary has accurately described what happenned. She was given false or misleading information. Based on that information she made the only decision possible. She has nothing to appologize for. The one who owes an apology to the american people is the current president and his staff.

[randalds]

She's really a female version of Hugo Chavez (in a bad pant suit).....she's socialist to the core.
Posted by bigwhtpony at 10:36 AM : Feb 23, 2007

I like her pantsuit, esp from the back (nice as*s for an older chick!). Besides as a fellow Socialist I should be supporting her, but I'm not. She's pandered far too (just like that as*shole McCain on the right) to get my support in the primaries.

[hawksprings]

"Patriotism and honor mean nothing to these people."

And neither does honesty.

[bigwhtpony]

So was Nancy Pelosi, with her TEN YEARS on the Intelligence Committee LYING???
Posted by HawkSprings at 10:10 AM : Feb 23, 2007

Nicely done. Air Pelosi is a hippy throwback from the Haight-Ashbury 60's who will sell her sould (and has) for political gain for her party and for herself.

Patriotism and honor mean nothing to these people.

[bigwhtpony]

Hitlery should apologize for trying to pass herself off as a moderate "centrist." She's really a female version of Hugo Chavez (in a bad pant suit).....she's socialist to the core.

[hawksprings]

So was Nancy Pelosi, with her TEN YEARS on the Intelligence Committee LYING???

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/
cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H7777&dbname=2002_record

[hawksprings2]

So was John Kerry LYING:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

[hawksprings]

Jason, YOU are proving my point exactly!

All we hear from the Left and the Media is that Bush LIED about WMDs and Iraq.

Before we went in the Dembots all said Iraq had WMDs and Saddam needed to be stopped.


So is Ted Kenneday a Liar?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

[jasonmcj]

To Hawksprings:

You are missing the point (which I think GOP does intentionally), which is: Democrats DIDN'T go to WAR, waste billions of dollars, lose all international creditability, and most importantly, we did not create MORE terrorists.

That all happened on GOP watch.

I'll wait for the ad hominem attacks, since it is all GOP has left.

[hawksprings]

Tell us, Dembots, read these quotes from your fearless leaders about Iraq and tell us, were they all lying too?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

[jasonmcj]

Attention delusional soccer moms: You are not enough to elect Hillary.

All of you middle-aged working moms, (and usually only you) that hold placards and scream like Beatle fans at rallies is so funny to realists.

Hillary can not win, go with another candidate now while you still can. Hillary can only make things worse for Dems and America.

[hawksprings]

Tell me something libs, was Hillary, Bill, Pelosi, and the other dembots lying back in the late 90's when they were all saying how Iraq and Saddam had WMDs?

All it takes to find DOZENS of quotes from Democrats talking about Iraq's WMDs is a quick google on "Clinton quotes on Iraq".

But you won't do that will you, because it contradicts your twisted view of the facts.

If Bush was lying about Iraq, then so was Pelosi, the Clintons, and the rest of the Dembots.

.

[jasonmcj]

She did NOT do the right thing. WMD? so what...Iraq was a sovereign nation and even with bad intelligence, it was obvious that al Qaeda has no ties to Saddam Hussein.

All polticians lie to some extent, so what, but Hillary is a calculating pathological liar, very bad, much like the current adminsitration.

Iraq was revenge for Bush, plain and simple. Hillary is just another Bush.

[jasonmcj]

Hillary, what a clown

Go Barry!!!

[cathaleen]

Hillary should not apologize for her vote on the Iraq war because she voted on the false info she was given. In essence she did the right thing.

We all know now is was wrong but if she apologizes
(when given the facts then, she was correct) will anyone every trust her vote again. It doesn't make much sense = it's water under the bridge.
Let's move on and elect her President.

[bluenavy1]

Now that I posted my remarks on Senator Hillary Clinton I like to say that as a Vietnam War veteran we made agrave mistake by walking out of that war, we should have instead totally bomb out north Vietnam as we did in Japan and Germany in WW11, but we didn't, President Kennedy would have not pulled our troops out of Vietnam ending the war as it was done by President Johnson and President Nixon whom always held up his two peace fingers as such we cannot do the same in Iraq, the people of Iraq need our help, the insurgents are killing those innocent people every day. The people of Iraq want a democratic society as we have in America so as they can have a freedom of choice especially the women of Iraq, We as Americans have to try are best to see that they achieve this, if we just walk we will look like fools throughout the world, just ask our troops as they see what is happening in Iraq to the people and most of our military personnel that I have spoken to agree that we must stand fast in Iraq and not just walk away. Yes we must find a way to laeve Iraq but not on the souls of the Iraq people. Thomas J. Pyatt, Bay Shore Long Island New York, County of Suffolk, Life member of AMVETS(American Veterans) E. Islip, American Legion, Brentwood and Veterans of the Vietnam War, King Pk.

[bluenavy1]

I am a republican and I don't believe Senator Hillary Clinton should apologize for her vote on the Iraq war because her vote was correct at the time with the messages that were received from the Bush adminstration of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 90% of the american public as well as an over welming majority of both the house and senate voted for and approved this war knowing the facts told to us at the time. There was no remorse at the time that we entered into the war in Iraq by the american public, congress or the senate so as such we should not be ecuting Senator Clinton for her vote and no there is no reason in her apologizing for her vote for the war. If the american public still thinks she should than the 90% of the american public, congress and the senate should all apologize first sice a majority of all of us approved of President Bush discission on the war as we all so it at the time. Also the majority if not all of the persons running for president also approved of the war. Yes we made a mistake but knowing what we all knew at the time there was no mistake made so no apologies are necessary from anyone including Senator Clinton. Tom Pyatt, Bay Shore, Long Island New York, County of Suffolk.

[tuckerndfw]

Hillary Clinton, like most American politicians, laps at the boots of AIPAC, Israel's subversive agency in the US.

Hillary's vote then was in response to AIPAC's demand that the US overthrow Saddam Hussein. Saddam was providing financial assistance to victims of Israel's war crimes. And, that cannot be tolerated.

If Israel is to succeed with her ethnic cleansing, she must he allowed to remove all non-Jews from the region, without interference from her neighbors.

AIPAC is demanding the US attack Iran, so we can expect Hillary to support attacking or invading Iran.

Hillary shouldn't apologize, she should move to Israel, renounce her US citizenship (no "dual citizenship") and run for political office as a member of the Likud or some other extremist right wing war mongering Israeli political party.

As should any other American who puts Israel's interests before those of the US.

[naverd-2009]

I love Hillary Clinton. It would be great if she was president. However, I think that she should start out with the hard core truth. The main reason that she voted for the war, because if she hadn't, in the wake of 911, she would looked like freshman senator that was not in support of the President. I'm don't work in Washington, and I'm not in politics, but I knew that going to war with Irag was completely and totally wrong. I find it hard to believe that a person of her intellect didn't know the same thing. She was simply afraid of being dixie chicked.