Posted on 02/10/2007 12:54:12 AM PST by Jim Noble
MANCHESTER – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq was "not a vote for a pre-emptive war," but instead a show of support for further United Nations weapons inspections.
The Democratic Presidential front-runner, who has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for not apologizing for the vote, emphasized that distinction in a telephone interview from Washington.
While fellow candidate John Edwards, a former senator, has apologized for his vote on the October 2002 resolution, Clinton again did not.
"I will let others speak for themselves," she said. "I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq."
She said that when she explained her vote four years ago, "I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war."
A Clinton campaign spokesman later noted that on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton stated that her vote for the resolution "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, 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 the throughout the world."
In the interview, the former first lady said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the current status of the war, she said, and for being "grossly misinformed" or for having "twisted the intelligence to satisfy a preconceived version of the facts" before the invasion.
"Either interpretation casts grave doubt on their judgment," she said. "If they were so intent on pursuing military action, a pre-emptive action, which I said at the time I opposed, against Saddam Hussein, then why on earth were they not better prepared and more competent in its execution?"
Clinton said Bush and his administration "have performed a great disservice to our men and women in uniform, to our country, to our vital national security interests in the region and to the ongoing struggle against Islamic extremists."
Clinton spoke with the New Hampshire Union Leader on the eve of her first campaign visit to the first-in-the-nation primary state. She is scheduled to talk to voters today in Berlin and Concord and tomorrow in Manchester, Nashua and Keene. She last visited the state in 1996.
Also yesterday, Clinton said she would campaign in New Hampshire even if the primary date set by Secretary of State William Gardner under a state law does not comply with the Jan. 22, 2008, date written into a new party rule by Democratic National Committee (see related story).
Clinton said she has proposed capping the U.S. military force in Iraq at the Jan. 1 level and has "voted for more than a year and a half to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq."
She does not "at this time" support a cut in funding for American troops in Iraq. She backs instead a cut in funding for Iraqi troops.
"We have got to get their attention," she said of the Iraqi leadership. She said they "do not fulfill their promises" and make "worthless" assurances.
She predicted that if Congress were to approve a funding cut, Bush would veto it.
"I hate to say that," she said, "but I think that shows the level of stubbornness and rigidity that we are confronting with this President."
And what may have been veiled criticism of at least some of her Democratic opponents, Clinton said, "This is a very difficult situation we find ourselves in, and anyone who thinks there are easy answers or flip rhetoric that can be used is not fully appreciating the challenge that those of us confront who are trying to set up circumstances that will persuade the President to do what we all expect and want him to do."
Clinton did not say how she would have voted on New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg's proposed nonbinding Senate resolution simply opposing any cuts in troop funding. She said she backed a resolution by Republican Sen. John Warner and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin to oppose the Bush troop "surge" while also opposing a funding cut.
Bush, she said, "has proven impervious to the election results, so we are trying to get the political support we need in the Congress" to pass a strong anti-escalation statement in a nonbinding resolution.
She said the breakdown of efforts in the Senate this week to pass the Warner-Levin resolution was the result of "a Republican strategic decision to try to divert attention from doing that very straightforward task of sending a clear message to the White House."
She supported even stronger measures, saying, "The President should have to get a new congressional authorization if he is going to move down this path."
Clinton said that after the United Nations Security Council supported sending inspectors into Iraq in November 2002, "Saddam Hussein was contained and there was no reason not to let the inspectors finish their job to find answers to the questions many people had."
She said Congress' authorization a month earlier "did not necessarily require the President to short-circuit the process to launch the invasion," adding, "The abrupt conclusion of the inspection process, I think, was a mistake."
She said an earlier Bush mistake came when he "diverted attention from Afghanistan and the war against al-Qaida and the opportunity to build a strong international alliance against extremism and terrorism" and focused on Saddam.
She said had she been President, "I think I would never had asked for" authority to invade Iraq because she would not have begun the war.
Elaborating, she said: "But once a President asks for such authority, you either vote to give it to him or vote to withhold it from him. If you look at the options that were available, giving the President authority to make it very clear to the security council, to Iraq and to the world that we were serious about forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations under various United Nations' resolutions and the agreement he entered into at the end of the first Gulf War was a reasonable policy.
"What was not reasonable was manipulating the intelligence, which we now know occurred, and refusing to allow the inspectors under the edict of the United Nations to do their work."
The Washington Post reported yesterday that a Pentagon inspector general had found that intelligence provided by a former undersecretary of defense to buttress the White House case for the invasion included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials.
"This unfortunately confirms what we've been discovering in the last three years," Clinton said, "that the administration never intended to let the inspectors complete their work despite assurances to the contrary and that they gilded the lily on the intelligence they had."
Clinton said, "If we had known then what we know now about both the allegations concerning Saddam's intentions and capacity and about our own government's intentions, we would never have had a vote, and if there had been a vote, I certainly would never have voted to give the President authority," she said.
"What you are now saying, Senator Clinton, you would have left Saddam kept doing what he had been doing since the first Iraq war. You would have preferred that President George W. Bush kept doing what your hushand, President William J. Clinton, had done for 8 years... and all would be well in the world."
If I knew then what I know now...I could make a ton of money on cattle futures!
She's so bent I might actually have to vote for Rudy.
" I voted for the war, but I did not vote for the war". THIS is what people see as leadership?? Rut roh raggie, think we're in trouble.
These are the missing words which they deserve from us, and which we can only give through our representatives in Congress assembled: "to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
Oops, I forgot to include the rabid demonic weasels thrown in for good measure...
LOL!! The Clinton brand of flip-flopping/rewriting history begins. And a bad job of it she's doing, too. Good.
"Early the next morning, Saturday August 15, Bill woke me up just as he had done months before. This time he didn't sit by the bed, but paced back and forth. He told me for the first time that the situation was much more serious than he had previously acknowledged. He now realized he would have to testify that there had been an inappropriate intimacy. He told me that what happened between them had been brief and sporadic. He couldn't tell me seven months ago, he said, because he was too ashamed to admit it and he knew how angry and hurt I would be."I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him, 'What do you mean? What are you saying? Why did you lie to me?'
"I was furious and getting more so by the second. He just stood there saying over and over again, 'I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I was trying to protect you and Chelsea.' I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Up until now, I only thought that he'd been foolish for paying attention to the young woman and was convinced he was being railroaded. I couldn't believe he would do anything to endanger our marriage and our family. I was dumbfounded, heartbroken, and outraged that I'd believed him at all."
Excerpts from 'Living History',
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/09/book.excerpts/index.html
In the clear light of day, I can see it's another sign (as if any were needed) that Ms. Rodham is a terrible, terrible candidate. If any Democrat is serious about denying her the nomination (I'm not sure that any are), she is serving up boatloads of ammo which can be used to take her apart.
What a nightmare for them, to run with "I voted for the war before I voted against it" again.
"...Clinton stated that her vote for the resolution "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, 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 the throughout the world." (emphasis mine)
The arrogance of American power or purpose?
If this woman is ever allowed at the helm, America's military will be nothing more than a forced social experiment and America will have no purpose other than attempting to revive every failed socialist/communist ideology.
I just don't get it. Is this women so detached that she thinks we will believe anything she says? Or is she counting on 33% of the voting public being morons?
Boggles the mind it does...
5.56mm
I can't believe this country has come to this.
That sequence will make a very effective campaign ad.
She's such a fraud.
Both, I think.
She learned from her huge support among Upstate Republican women in 2000 that sometimes it doesn't matter what you say. She drips contempt for ordinary people, and, like a lot of people who made their academic way based on "objective" tests and not actual achievement, she probably does think AT LEAST 33% of the voters are morons.
Her fate now turns on her primary opponents. If Obama or Al Gore wants to beat her, she's not going to make it.
I'm not convinced, however, that Obama is crazy enough to want to be President at this stage of his career. And the others - I'm not sure they want to beat her.
IF she wins the nomination, there's only one Republican who can beat her. And most people here won't vote for him.
So, unless her fellow RATs stop her, I think there's an excellent chance she will be the next President.
Can't let that happen. If she wins, and has a democRAT congress, it will be the makings of a nightmare for our country.
5.56mm
I've gotta agree. As many things as I disagree with him on, if it comes down to him or Her Heinousness, I'm going with Rudy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.