or: How the Democratic Party is Ceding the Anti-War High Ground
Since the original authorization there has neither been a vote to invade Iraq nor a vote to take back that decision made for us by the president and a congressional majority. If there had been such a vote- many of those who made the wrong decision back then have learned better or have been replaced by those whom knew better... so I am not particularly worried that we will somehow choose to invade Iraq all over again. I am worried that those who have learned of their error do not realize it was the wrong decision based on what they knew at the time, rather than what they know now. You do not only need to know the Iraq war was wrong, you need to know why.
This (pdf link) is why the Iraq War was wrong in October of 2002:
I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.
Hillary Clinton continues to call attention to the alleged inconsistency of Barack Obama's record on Iraq. Recent public statements from both Clintons have played up (Hillary, Bill) their past oppositions to the Iraq War or contrasts with George W. Bush. However, when Hillary speaks of Obama's post-invasion record, she criticizes it... as being very much like her own. The first part of her case focuses on the common misrepresentation of Obama's statements in 2004:
‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’
The italicized portion is emphasized at HillaryHub, the bold emphasis is mine. I would like to know, in fact, what is allegedly wrong or inconsistent about this statement? Obama was not in the Washington loop regarding Iraq intelligence then or at the time he made the above statement. It would be valid for Clinton or anyone else to defend their vote on the basis of having evidence that Saddam Hussein was indeed an imminent threat. They do not, as the case was not any stronger on the tables of Senate committees than it was when Colin Powell spoke before the United Nations. You do not only need to know that the Iraq war was wrong, you need to be able to see the lie in such arguments.
HillaryHub continues, citing the oft-mentioned Chicago Tribune article:
In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. [...] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]
Did I miss an Iraq invasion vote in July of '04? There is, in fact, no inconsistency in opposing a "dumb" war and agreeing that, once the invasion has taken place and every centralized power capable of maintaining national stability has been overthrown, that it would be irresponsible to leave a country in a primordial state of mass civil war. Both, indeed, are humane positions. Taking the contrary position, as Hillary Clinton once did, was not. You do not only need to protect human life before you go to war, you need to protect it once they have been put at risk.
HillaryHub continues...
In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]
So we are to know that either Obama voted the right way, or that Clinton voted the wrong way - is that it?
Clinton campaign hypocrisy aside, the notion that one cannot be anti-Iraq war and still vote for supplemental funding bills is not an uncommon sentiment on the left. It is also a perfectly valid debate. Funding was never the only tactic in anti-Iraq legislative strategy, and indeed the Obama website notes...
Since Obama Has Gone to Washington, Every Senate Democrat Has Voted For Every Iraq Funding Bill Until President Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal.
snip...
After Bush Vetoed A Timetable For Withdrawal, Obama Voted Against A Motion To Concur In House Amendments To $120 Billion Emergency Appropriations Bill
Should Obama (and every other Senate Democrat) have launched an ultimately quixotic mission against supplemental funding? Certainly by 2006, in the face of Bush administration recalcitrance and a mission in Iraq that was doing more humanitarian harm than good, I believe that answer is "yes," but that does not revise the history of Obama or anyone else having opposed the initiation of this disastrous war. You do not only have to know we must leave Iraq, you must know enough not to invade the next Iraq.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about the war and her vote in its favor, December 15, 2003:
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.
A few days ago Clinton suggested she would not have started the Iraq war. Given that the war came about as a consequence of the authorization of military force: she already has. I'm sure, given what she knows now, if another vote came around she would not do the same thing, for all that she has defended her previous decision. I am not worried that we will go to war in Iraq... I am worried that we will go to war in Pakistan, in Somalia, in Iran or in Syria over notions of imminent threat Clinton has never adequately repudiated. In each of these countries our bipartisan foreign policy has been fundamentally driven, since 9/11, by a military strategy against an active "terrorist" threat to the neglect of a social strategy against a future threat. I know that John Edwards understands this, as he has spoken on the subject. I know Barack Obama understands this, as he understood it back in 2002.
When our nominee matches up against his Republican opponent for the general election, I want them to be able to say "I rejected a false case for war. You did not."