I've been reading on several blogs about Hillary Clinton's recent statement that she didn't authorize the President to wage pre-emptive war against Iraq when she voted for the force resolution. Most blogs seem to take the position that this is a cop out. One, in the TPM Cafe section of the Talking Points Memo, posted a link to the actual text of Clinton's Senate speech at the time of the war vote. The transcript is very interesting reading, and seems to bolster her current claim...
Bob Somersby, over at the Daily Howler, has done some great work talking about the "Clinton frame" that is being constructed by pundits both on the right and the left - Bob had the bad form point out that Clinton actually came out with a statement saying in effect, "If we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't even have been a vote." in August of 2004, long before John Edwards disavowed his vote for the force resolution. And yet our "opinion leaders" on both sides keep making the bogus claim that Hillary was (or is) a "staunch supporter of the war" or "the last hold out" or some such.
Her actual Senate speech at the time of the vote was quite specific about the administration's responsibility to use the authority wisely and as a last resort, after all United Nations remedies had been exhausted. Clinton specifically rejected the idea of attackng Iraq pre-emptively:
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
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.
Later in her speech, she stated:
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.
Finally she ended her speech with these words:
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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Reading the speech has told me more about Clinton's position then anything I have read or heard over the past several years. Seems to me like her positions then and now are completely compatible.