Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat's Missing From Hillary's Iraq Apology
What's Missing From Hillary's Iraq ApologyThe Atlantic
July 2014
Among the biggest news from Hillary Clintons largely newsless new book is her blunt apology for voting to authorize war in Iraq. I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had, she writes And I wasnt alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong.
This represents a change. In 2008, her advisors feared that if she called her Iraq vote a mistake, Republicans would savage her for flip-flopping, as they had done to John Kerry four years earlier. So even after John Edwards apologized for his Iraq vote, she refused to. In their book, Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. quote Clintons chief strategist, Mark Penn, as insisting that, Its important for all Democrats to keep the word mistake firmly on the Republicans.
Although many liberals assumed that in her heart Clinton was as dovish as themand thus must have been insincere in her vote to authorize warthe evidence suggests that her experience during her husbands presidency made her more hawkish. For better or worse, her behavior as secretary of statewhere she championed the Afghan surge, aid to Syrias rebels, and the war in Libyasuggests that she still is.
But if Clintons claim that I had acted in good faith passes muster, her assertion that she made the best decision I could with the information I had does not. Prior to Clintons October 10, 2002 speech from the Senate floor explaining her Iraq vote, the Bush administration sent over two documents to the Senate for review. The first was a 92-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqs weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second was a five-page, unclassified version.
Despite a partial dissent from the State Departments intelligence arm, the unclassified NIE declared that the intelligence community possessed high confidence that Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs. Its hard to know exactly what was in the longer, classified version, since even when the Bush administration released it in 2004, it whited out 78 of its 92 pages. But it went into more detail about the objections raised by the State Department, and especially the Department of Energy, to claims that Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario.
Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.
Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that.
Still, Clintons failure to read the document means her books claim that she made the best decision I could with the information I had is probably untrue.
How could someone renowned for doing her homework have failed to do so on the most important vote of her Senate career? Clintons Iraq apology notwithstanding, its a question worth asking if she runs for president again.
This represents a change. In 2008, her advisors feared that if she called her Iraq vote a mistake, Republicans would savage her for flip-flopping, as they had done to John Kerry four years earlier. So even after John Edwards apologized for his Iraq vote, she refused to. In their book, Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. quote Clintons chief strategist, Mark Penn, as insisting that, Its important for all Democrats to keep the word mistake firmly on the Republicans.
Although many liberals assumed that in her heart Clinton was as dovish as themand thus must have been insincere in her vote to authorize warthe evidence suggests that her experience during her husbands presidency made her more hawkish. For better or worse, her behavior as secretary of statewhere she championed the Afghan surge, aid to Syrias rebels, and the war in Libyasuggests that she still is.
But if Clintons claim that I had acted in good faith passes muster, her assertion that she made the best decision I could with the information I had does not. Prior to Clintons October 10, 2002 speech from the Senate floor explaining her Iraq vote, the Bush administration sent over two documents to the Senate for review. The first was a 92-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqs weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second was a five-page, unclassified version.
Despite a partial dissent from the State Departments intelligence arm, the unclassified NIE declared that the intelligence community possessed high confidence that Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs. Its hard to know exactly what was in the longer, classified version, since even when the Bush administration released it in 2004, it whited out 78 of its 92 pages. But it went into more detail about the objections raised by the State Department, and especially the Department of Energy, to claims that Hussein had a nuclear-weapons program. According to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the NIE changed so dramatically from its classified to its unclassified form and broke all in one direction, toward a more dangerous scenario.
Using logs of who entered the secure room where the classified NIE was kept, The Washington Post reported that only six senators read it. When The Hill newspaper later polled senators, 22 said they had.
Clinton has never claimed to be among them. When asked directly on Meet the Press in 2008, she sidestepped the question, declaring, I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that.
Still, Clintons failure to read the document means her books claim that she made the best decision I could with the information I had is probably untrue.
How could someone renowned for doing her homework have failed to do so on the most important vote of her Senate career? Clintons Iraq apology notwithstanding, its a question worth asking if she runs for president again.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 600 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What's Missing From Hillary's Iraq Apology (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
And her "enemies" comment of the debate as "Iranians" shows her to STILL be a war hawk!
cascadiance
Oct 2015
#1
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)1. And her "enemies" comment of the debate as "Iranians" shows her to STILL be a war hawk!
... and would make the same mistakes again.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)2. A shred of sincerity? [n/t]
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)3. Out, damn'd spot! out, I say! Lady MacBeth K&R
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)4. Also missing: an apology
Just admission of a mistake.