It’s a simple question. As we all know, Preside George W. Bush, in one of the most monumental foreign policy disasters in American history, invaded Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses, i.e., flat out lies. The results of that action proved horrific, both from a humanitarian perspective and from a geopolitical standpoint. We are still dealing with the consequences of that ‘mistake’ in the Middle East, in Europe, in our own country and across the globe.
Ask your self this: Between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who do you believe is most likely to involve the United States in a new war of aggression, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, if elected President?
Before you answer, however, please take the time to do some research on the track record of each candidate regarding their positions on the use of military force. Let’s begin with their respective votes on the AUMF, i.e., the Resolution to Authorize Authorization the Use of Military Force against Iraq, in 2002, sometimes referred to as the Iraq War Resolution. Both Clinton and Sanders were Senators at the time in question.
Senator Clinton voted for the AUMF. Senator Sanders voted against it. However, one should not judge either candidate based solely on how they voted on the AUMF. So let’s dig deeper, shall we, beginning with their positions regarding the Iraq War.
Here are some excerpts from the speech my then Senator Hillary Clinton gave on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002, explaining why she intended to vote to give the Bush administration the unilateral power to wage a war of aggression on Iraq.
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 ...
[...]
In the four years since the [UN] 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.
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.
Now, to be fair, Hillary stated that she preferred diplomacy to war, so long as diplomacy involved new UN resolutions demanding a more extensive and intrusive inspection regime.
What is clear, however, is that she stated as fact on the floor of the Senate that Saddam Hussein had worked to “rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program;” and that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...” These were the very lies the Bush administration were disseminating, the very lies that resulted in the outing of a Senior CIA operative, Valerie Plame, by Cheney’s right hand man, Scooter Libby, after Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went public regarding the falsity of the administration’s claim that Saddam had sought to purchase raw uranium ore for his so-called nuclear program from the African nation of Niger.
Unfortunately, Senator Clinton was not the only prominent Democratic elected official who publicly stated they believed the Administration lies. However, in and before 2002, there were a number of people who objected to the claim that Saddam Hussein and his alleged WMD program was a national security threat to the United States. One of them was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, Scott Ritter, stated in a 1999 interview that Iraq did not have the capability to produce chemical biological or nuclear weapons.
When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today (i.e., 1999) possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."
Other voices against the war existed, but most were drowned out or suppressed. One was Phil Donahue, popular TV talk show host, who was fired by MsNBC for his anti-war views. So did Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, former Bush I National Security Adviser, Brent Snowcraft, and a host of senior military officials in the Pentagon. And so did then Congressional Representative Sanders, who had this to say on the floor of the House, regarding the Iraq War Resolution:
Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the President feels, despite what our intelligence agencies are saying, that it is so important to pass a resolution of this magnitude this week and why it is necessary to go forward without the support of the United Nations and our major allies including those who are fighting side by side with us in the war on terrorism.
[...]
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, let me give five reasons why I am opposed to giving the President a blank check to launch a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and why I will vote against this resolution. One, I have not heard any estimates of how many young American men and women might die in such a war or how many tens of thousands of women and children in Iraq might also be killed. As a caring Nation, we should do everything we can to prevent the horrible suffering that a war will cause. War must be the last recourse in international relations, not the first. Second, I am deeply concerned about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations. If President Bush believes that the U.S. can go to war at any time against any nation, what moral or legal objection could our government raise if another country chose to do the same thing?
Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, ``An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.''
Obviously, Sanders was one of the few notable members of Congress who refused to buy the Bush administration’s lies about the need to rush to war and depose Saddam Hussein because — mushroom clouds! It is also clear he was prescient in his concerns about the potential for blow back from the reckless and unnecessary acts of aggressive war everyone knew was coming when they voted to approve the AUMF. Since that time, Sanders has steadfastly maintained that the Iraq war was a mistake.
Former Senator Clinton, however, was not so willing to walk back her support for the Iraq war. Even though the UN inspectors sent to Iraq found no evidence of any hidden WMD program, on March 17, 2003, the eve of war, Senator Clinton firmly stood by President Bush and rejected any call to delay the invasion.
Tonight, the President gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly. While we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this mission is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualties. I have had the honor of meeting and speaking with many of our brave men and women in uniform. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated military in the entire world, we support them fully and we are grateful for their courageous service in these difficult times.
Later in December 2003, she said this to the Council on Foreign Relations about her vote authorizing Bush to invade and occupy Iraq, long after it was confirmed Iraq had no WMD program that posed a threat tom the US:
Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.
[...]
I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.
In other words, invading Iraq was still a good idea, she stood by her decision to support it, but she blamed the Bush administration for being unprepared for what would happen the “day after.” In February 2005, on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, she continued to support the American occupation in Iraq when she rejected any withdrawal of American troops, because it would send a “signal to the terrorists” about America’s lack of resolve. When John Murtha proposed faster troop withdrawals from Iraq in November 2005, Senator Clinton reacted by stating his proposal “would be a big mistake.” In 2006, though she continued to criticize the Bush’s handling of the war, she rejected withdrawing our troops by a date certain.
Only in 2014, prior to declaring herself a candidate for the presidency, did Senator Clinton finally admit in her book, Hard Choices, that she “got it wrong” on her Iraq war vote, though she qualified that by claiming she had acted “in good faith.” Not sure if her admission that she made a mistake included her support for regime change in Iraq, a policy first adopted during her husband’s administration.
Bernie Sanders also has a record regarding Iraq beyond the vote on the AUMF. In 1991, he stood alone on the House floor in opposition to the vote to authorize the first Iraq war by then Present George H. W. Bush. Here is a link to the speech he made on January 17, 19991 opposing the 1st Gulf war. Excerpts from that speech follow:
We should make no mistake about it, today is a tragic day for humanity, for the people of Iraq, for the people of the United States, and for the United Nations as an institution. It is also a tragic day for the future of our planet and for the children, 30,000 of whom in the Third World will starve to death today as we spend billions to wage this war – and 25 percent of whom in our own country live in poverty in our country because we apparently lack the funds to provide them with a minimal standard of living. ...
"Despite the fact that we are now aligned with such Middle Eastern dictatorships such as Syria, a terrorist dictatorship, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, feudalistic dictatorships, and Egypt, a one-party state that receives seven billion dollars in debt forgiveness to wage this war with us, I believe that in the long run, the action unleashed last night will go strongly against our interests in the Middle East. Clearly the United States and allies will win this war, but the death and destruction caused, will in my opinion, not be forgotten by the poor people of the Third World and the people of the Middle East in particular. ...
"I fear that one day we will regret that decision and that we are in fact laying the ground work for more and more wars for years to come."
Sanders’ fears were realized when Osama Bin Ladin’s terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, a group that sought radical Islamic revolution, began to focus its attention on the US military presence in the Middle East as justification for Al Qaeda’s terrorist actions against those forces, US embassies and US civilians in the continental United States on two separate occasions, Febrtuary 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001.
So what have each of the candidates said lately?
Sanders stated in the November 15, 2015 Iowa debate, that the majority of the blame for the resulting conflicts in the Middle East and the rise of radical Islamic terrorist groups resulted largely from the foreign policy mistakes made by past administrations and those who supported those military interventions. Indeed he called the invasion of Iraq the worst foreign policy blunder in recent American History. He also indicated his opposition to a any foreign policy based on regime change. Some excerpts:
[O]f course international terrorism is a major issue that we've got to address today. And I agree with much of what-- the secretary and-- and the governor have said. Only have one area of-- of disagreement with the secretary. I think she said something like, "The bulk of the responsibility is not ours."
Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda-- and to-- ISIS. Now, in fact, what we have got to do-- and I think there is widespread agreement here-- 'cause the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes-- very significantly-- (UNINTEL) nations in that region are gonna have to fight and defend their way of life.
Clinton did not directly contradict Sanders, but here is what she said that sparked his rejoinder that the US is not primarily to blame for the mess in the Middle East. Her first response was to a question by the debate moderator regarding the sudden rise of ISIS.
I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush-- made with the Iraqis to leave-- by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it.
And then with the revolution against Assad-- and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be-- extremist groups filling the vacuum.
So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition-- to what's happened in the region. But I don't think that the United States-- has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.
And here is Clinton’s response to Sanders’ statement that the Iraq war was “one of the worst foreign policy plunders in the modern history of United States.”
I think it's important we put this in historic context. United States has unfortunately been victimized by terrorism going back decades. In the 1980s it was in Beirut, Lebanon under President Reagan's administration and 258 Americans, marines, embassy personnel and others were-- murdered.
We also had attacks on two of our embassies in-- Tanzania and Kenya-- when my husband was president. Again, Americans murdered. And then of course 9/11 happened which happened before there was an invasion of Iraq. I have said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But I think if we're ever gonna really tackle the problems posed by jihadi extreme terrorism we need to understand it and realize that it had-- ans-- and (UNINTEL) to what happened in Iraq and we have to continue to be vigilant about it.
[...]
This is an incredibly complicated region of the world. It's become more complicated. And many of the fights that are going on are not ones that the United States has either started or have a role in. The Shia-- Sunni split, the dictatorships that have suppressed people's aspirations, the increasing globalization without any real safety valve for people to have a better life. We saw that in Egypt. We saw a dictator overthrown, we saw Muslim Brotherhood president installed and then we saw him ousted and the army back. So I think we've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no places more so than in the Middle East.
Due to the length of this post, I have not referred to Clinton’s role as Secretary of State in the Obama administration as it relates to the military actions the US government took with respect to Libya, Syria and Iran, other than that she defended those actions. I will say that no deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program was consummated until her replacement, John Kerry, took an active role in negotiations. However, one report from the Wall Street Journal credits her with opening the door for negotiations with Iran to begin during her last days as Secretary of State in December 2012. I also note that Clinton gave a speech in September in which she offered support for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Secretary Kerry, though with strongly worded caveats.
Clinton compared Iran to ISIS and accused Tehran of fomenting chaos and supporting terrorism beyond its borders, and portrayed the Islamic Republic as a “brutal regime”. This while vowing to take military action if Iran's leaders were to decide to move towards nuclear weapons in the future.
Clinton combined her vehement attack on Iran with a vigorous defence of Israel, having fallen out of favour with the Obama White House over her criticism of the deal. In doing so, Clinton has now successfully sold her image as an ardent friend of Israel who will, if elected, heal the present wounds in the special relationship between US and Israel.
I also note that, to my knowledge, she has not publicly disavowed a policy of regime change, whether in Syria or Iran or anywhere else. And she has publicly responded to the Sanders’ criticism of her support for regime change by making the following statement at the last Democratic debate:
"With all due respect, senator, you voted for regime change with respect to Libya. You joined the Senate in voting to get rid of Gaddafi, and you asked that there be a Security Council validation of that with a resolution."
However, a closer look at the vote on the resolution to which she refers did not call for the use of military force to effect regime change in Libya:
Congress never voted to authorize U.S. military action in Libya, so what is Clinton talking about?
On March 1, 2011, the Senate approved a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya."
The Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, so senators never actually voted on it. But Sanders showed his support by joining in as one of 10 cosponsors.
The resolution called for peaceful regime change, saying Gaddafi should "desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy."
Here is what Sanders had to say prior to the Obama administration’s decision to support its allies in effecting the military overthrow of the Gaddafi regime:
In a March 28, 2011, interview, Sanders described his position toward regime change in Libya. He wanted Gaddafi gone, but not at all costs.
"Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer," Sanders said to Fox News. "We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan), I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly."
Obviously, what I’ve presented here barely scratches the surface on the past records of the two principal candidates and their likely proposals regarding our foreign relations if elected President. I urge everyone who cares about this issue — and that should be everyone here — to do their own research.
Because it is an important issue. For me, my daughter’s long term boyfriend has joined the Army Reserves as a Cavalry Scout. In any future deployment of US forces into a war zone, there is a good chance he will see combat. I know it is one of my daughter’s biggest concerns.
It is often said that war should be a last resort. However, during the terms of the past four presidents, our government has been consistently engaged in military conflicts around the globe. While some of those were likely unavoidable, others were not. I want the next president, whoever he or she may be, to understand that war is rarely good for our country, for our military and for humanity as a whole. Our nation has a long history of reckless military interventions and wars that went badly wrong, and primarily benefited arms dealers both here and abroad. Our next President should be a tireless worker for diplomatic solutions, not military ones, and if military force cannot be avoided, for the least use of force possible.