"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, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
To me, it wasn’t just the vote for the Iraq Resolution but the vindication of the neo-con’s rationale for needing to confront Saddam in the wake of 9-11 at all. It seemed plain that Saddam was the easiest petty tyrant in the world to contain at that point and, if anything, an enemy of the creeps who had attacked us. If anyone wanted him taken out of power more than the U.S. it was al-Qaeda.
There was a certain built in racism in how easy it was to shift the blame of 9-11 onto another chosen Middle Eastern boogieman. Watching this unfold and being unable to do anything to effectively stand in the way was heartbreaking on the deepest level and we needed leaders who would speak truth to power and stand in the way of the administration that was stoking war hysteria. I could not and still cannot see any reason for wanting to invade Iraq in 2002 other than the fact that it was the opposite of what they claimed: it was weak and vulnerable. Not a threat but an opportunity. Fear from 9-11 and the ease of confusing the public about one group of Arabs over another is what provided that opportunity. Hillary’s best excuse for signing off on the Iraq Resolution would be that she just didn’t know that the administration was so eager to invade. Either a preposterous lie or an admission of rank stupidity. And Hillary Clinton aint stupid.
Hillary’s amplifying of Republican claims that Saddam was somehow an imminent threat and a part of the terrorist threat is still part of why it’s difficult to define the Democrats clearly from Republicans. We did have leaders pointing out that invading Iraq would lead to the creation of more not fewer terrorist threats. Even as we see that happening now with ISIS the conversation remains muddled. Because we’re still saddled with leaders like Hillary Clinton.
Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.… -2004