The central talking point, and trump card, of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign for President is that she has the experience to lead the nation from Day One. She speaks of having 35 years of experience working in the political arena that she can bring to the White House to lead the nation.
Sen. Obama counters that argument with the point that experience isn't everything. It's judgment that matters. And the crystallizing point in this debate is the judgment on the Iraq war. There is a clear contrast between the two candidates: Clinton voted to go to war, and Obama was opposed to the war from the start.
The most troubling aspect for me with Sen. Clinton is her stout refusal to admit that voting for the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) was in any way a mistake. Unlike John Edwards, Clinton continues to parse why she voted for the IWR, and obfuscate the true intentions of that resolution. And the difference was no more striking that in last night's debate.
Clinton last night said she had assurances from the White House that they would not use the IWR to go to war with Iraq without first putting more inspectors into that country to get WMD. Wolf Blitzer, despite being a jerk most of the debate, actually asked her a really pointed question about the heart of the matter:
BLITZER: So, what I hear you saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?
CLINTON: No, that's not what you heard me say.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
Good try, Wolf. Good try. You know...
The audience booed (probably because they were sick of Blitzer's inane commentary), but in this case, he had a point: I mean, Sen. Clinton was seriously telling us that she didn't expect the Bush administration to use this authority to go to war unilaterally.
She continued:
I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.
Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.
Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.
So here is the central premise in Clinton's argument: it's all Bush's fault. Those of us who voted for the IWR hold no responsibility for our vote, because, well, the President is the one who didn't understand what WE were voting for.
At this point, it is instructive to actually look at the text of the IWR itself.
First, the part about diplomatic efforts:
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Notice something about the language about that section? It said that the Senate supported diplomatic efforts. Not mandated. Not required. No, merely "supported." Sen. Clinton can get all the personal assurances she wanted from the White House, but the law is the law. And the only thing in the IWR with respect to diplomatic efforts was a "rah-rah, go get 'em" cheerleading that diplomacy should be done.
Now, to the meat of the resolution itself. The actual authority given to the President:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
There you have it. The actual authority in the resolution is to give the President a blank check to use armed forces provided he feels it is necessary to defend the "national security" of the U.S. and feels he can enforce the U.N. resolutions on WMD.
The argument may be that this authority is tempered a bit by the next clause, but that really is a canard:
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Catch that? It's and either/or proposition. The President can tell Congress before or after he uses force why he did it. Doesn't require him to do it before. He can attack and inform Congress later. Simply put, Congress told him you can wage your pre-emptive war provided you give us a reason after the fact.
When Sen. Clinton gave her floor speech in favor of the resolution, it was replete with misnomers of what she was voting for. For instance, at one point she said:
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.
And then later she says:
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.
But here's the thing: Bush's own National Security Council had ALREADY stated the preemption was a legitmate doctrine on September 22, 2002. Sen. Clinton's floor speech was on October 10, 2002.
So Wolf Blitzer's question was legitimate: was it just naivete on the part of Sen. Clinton? Or something else?
I do not believe it was naivete. Because I've got as many years on this earth as Sen. Clinton claims to have experience in politics. And I may be naive on a lot of things, but I opposed this war from the beginning. And I knew that this vote was a vote to go to war. The simple reading of the language of the bill told us so. There was no check on the President's authority at all. There was no promise in the bill that we would put inspectors in first before attacking Iraq. All one needs to be to know that is literate.
I vote for "something else." Because Senator Clinton made the same vote Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards made. And it cannot be underemphasized that this was a vote of political calculation. No Democrat wanted to appear weak on national security in the wake of 9/11. Particularly any Democrat with political ambitions
So yes, it is a question of judgment. And when your judgment fails you, it shows more character to admit you were wrong (as Edwards did) than try to force a round peg into a square hole (as Clinton is trying to do).
We have two candidates left. And on the most important foreign policy of our time, one was right from the beginning, and one was wrong. And the one who was right gave us the clear reason to vote for him last night:
OBAMA: I don't want to -- I don't want to belabor this, because I know we're running out of time and I'm sure you guys want to move on to some other stuff, but I do just have to say this -- the legislation, the authorization had the title, an authorization to use U.S. military force, U.S. military force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood this was a vote potentially to go to war.
(APPLAUSE)
I think were very clear about that. That's the -- if you look at the headlines.
The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think, fairly, has claimed that she's got the experience on day one. And part of the argument that I'm making in this campaign is that, it is important to be right on day one.
Indeed, it is important to be right from Day One.
Just ask the families of our dead and wounded American soliders.