In case we forget:
Every Democrat who voted for the Iraq war has fallen back on the "was just giving Bush the option but hoped he would pursue diplomatic avenues first" defense. But lets not let foggy memory change the fact: there was no question to anyone at the time that the vote was authorizing WAR - whether it was cast by Clinton, Kerry, Edwards (who later apologized for his vote) or anyone else. No matter what dissenting statements or qualifiers they recorded for posterity on the Senate floor, the media and the American people knew what was being voted on. Bush I's National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft was publishing Op Eds in the month before pleading "Don't Attack Saddam." Check some headlines after the resolutions passed Congress:CNN:
Judgment.
The Washington Post:
"Congress Passes Iraq Resolution. Overwhelming Approval Gives Bush Authority to Attack Unilaterally"
The fact is, if you remember, the Bush administration pushed up the vote in order to make it an issue for the Democrats in the upcoming election season.
Clinton was fairly new to the Senate at that point, she was not running for reelection, but she did vote for the war. Why? Did she truly believe war was necessary? Was it political pressure? Was it a symptom of a sexist society: a female Senator having to prove she was "tough"? Yet even then she had it both ways - she recorded a statement on the Senate floor stating she was not for a pre-emptive or unilateral war, yet she still voted for one. Was she, even then, doing what she thought was necessary for the future of her political career?
Regardless of anything, I do think if anything shows someone's judgment, it is the decision to send people to risk - and sacrifice - their lives in a war. And I do think, in that, Clinton - and Kerry, and Edwards-failed.
Obama admittedly didn't have to make that decision- at that time he was a state senator- but here is what he said in a speech after that vote:
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein....He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But 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.Pretty accurate - 5 years ago, before a single bomb fell. Before thousands of American lives, and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were lost. Before billions of dollars spent, with no end or exit strategy yet in sight.
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.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Judgment.
1 comment:
I really don't understand the anti-republican sentiment. The surge worked, the economy is fine -- Exxon just posted record quarterly profits for any American company, and people are set to recieve some extra spending cash as part of the stimulus plan. I'm happy and content.
Post a Comment