Hillary Clinton was right on Iraq.
At least she was by the standards that people at dKos apply to many of their pet presidential candidates for 2004 and now 2008. She must have been "right," because her position in the fall of 2002 was the same as that of the much lionized Dean, Clark, and Gore during that time.
Disclaimer: I voted for Dean in 2004, largely due to his Iraq War opposition during the campaign. But I vote for Clinton in every 2008 straw poll - and I present this diary about her - not because she is my ideal candidate, but out of frustraion with the unfair and growing dismissal she gets from this site, and because I don't see many other strong alternatives.
(more after the break)
Howard Dean
10/6/02, news report in Des Moines Register
Dean opposes the Bush resolution and supports an alternative sponsored by Sens. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, and Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican. That resolution puts more emphasis on diplomacy and specifies that force be used only for disarmament purposes.
"It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally, but that should not be our first option," Dean told reporters before the dinner.
10/02/2002, news report in Salon.com
...the Biden-Lugar proposal places a greater emphasis on international cooperation and focuses on disarming Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, rather than regime change.
But, Lugar said, unlike the Levin proposal, his plan "reserves the right to act unilaterally if the Security Council fails to approve a new resolution requiring the dismantlement of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in a timely fashion."
Wes Clark
10/14/02, Time Magazine essay "Let's Wait to Attack"
The key issue about Iraq has never been whether we should act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions and disarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.
Al Gore
09/23/02, Speech to Commonwealth Club of San Francisco
The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the [Gulf War] truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. ... I believe that the congressional resolution should also make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law, not requiring any formal new doctrine of preemption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its great gravity.
Hillary Clinton
10/10/2002, speech before U.S. Senate
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
...
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.
...
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, 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 throughout the world.
...
I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
...
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.
People can point out minute differences in these 4 public statements and others, but the fact remains that all 4 of these potential candidates were staking out exactly the same political territory on the Iraq War issue: go back to the UN, build a broad coaltion, use force as a last resort, but definitely do disarm Saddam (remember, none of them challenged the WMD claims).
There are many legitimate complaints one may have about Hillary Clinton's politics. But unless you're backing Russ Feingold, her Iraq War vote is not a fair point of attack.
~END~