There isn't too much more evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons today as there was evidence that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons in 2002. In both cases, the regimes denied it. In both cases, they had a history of interest in these weapons. They both had good reason to develop them. In both cases, most Americans, most elected politicians, and most people around the world, thought they were trying to develop them, and that this represented a major threat to world security. If everyone turned out to be so wrong about Iraq, then why are we still so certain about Iran?
So we need to realize that Hillary had good reason to genuinely believe that Saddam had WMDs, and was at least trying to build a nuclear weapon. As I mentioned, we all thought that.
Certainly voting for the Iraq war resolution isn't unforgivable in and of itself. John Edwards voted for it, and we have all forgiven him (because he has renounced his vote). It seems that the problem we have with Hillary, is that she hasn't renounced her vote forcefully enough. She has said that she wouldn't vote for the resolution if she knew then what she knows now. But that still isn't forceful enough for a lot of people here. It seems many people want her to be forceful enough to say that her vote was a mistake.
You know what I think? I think it really doesn't matter. We cannot say that this proves that she can be misled or duped, because Edwards voted the same way, and we don't criticize him for that anymore. Edwards made the same mistake Hillary made, in voting for the war resolution. There is no substantive difference, regarding what that says about future decisions that they make, without the benefit of hindsight.
The problem many here seem to have, is that unlike Edwards, Hillary hasn't admitted her mistake and more or less asked for forgiveness. You know what I think about that? So what?
Why is it that it matters how forceful Hillary has been in renouncing her vote? The fact that she said that she wouldn't have voted the same way had she known then what she knows now implies that she knows she made a mistake. But this doesn't seem to be absolute enough for many people here. Edwards more or less has said the same thing. The difference is that Edwards has more or less added that he is sorry about his vote. Again I ask the same question: so what?
Does anyone here think that Hillary would have even considered invading Iraq, had she been president at the time? She didn't cause the war in Iraq through her vote. Bush would have invaded Iraq, even had the house and senate voted overwhelmingly against the war resolution. There was nothing she, nor anyone else, could have done to stop him.
She said at the time, and has since said, that she genuinely believed that she was voting to give him authority to handle Saddam diplomatically. Maybe, just maybe, she is telling the truth. Maybe she actually did think, or at least hope, that Bush wouldn't abuse the power.
Now we all knew at the time that he most likely would have invaded Iraq, and so did she. But again, the fact that she voted for the war isn't the issue. The issue is that she hasn't forcefully enough renounced her vote, like Edwards has. Does anyone doubt that she regrets her vote as much as Edwards? Does anyone doubt that, like Edwards, she knew that it was likely that Bush would have invaded Iraq no matter what, and that there was nothing she could do to stop it? Does anyone think that her vote shows more naivety than Edwards' vote shows? No, people here just want her to say, unequivocally, that she was wrong. I will say this again, so what?
The question now isn't about asking for forgiveness. It is a moral question, and nothing else. It isn't about what the vote says about her judgment skills, as it doesn't say that about those of John Edwards. The question is which candidate will be most likely to get us out of Iraq, without starting World War 3 in the process. Hillary (as well as every other dem) has said that she will pull us out of Iraq if elected president. Does anyone think that she is lying or being insincere?
Her refusal to say unequivocally that she was wrong shows something important about her judgment and management ability. It shows that she doesn't view issues in terms as black-and-white as the rest of us. It also shows that she wouldn't be as likely as some of the other candidates to pull out too quickly, and thus too recklessly. Some of the other candidates may be more interested in getting out, rather than being careful in how we get out. Hillary's goal will not just be to get out of Iraq, but to get out in a way that makes it more likely that a major war doesn't occur because of it, and that we don't have to go back in with 5 million soldiers in 10 years.
Does anyone think that Hillary won't get us out of Iraq? Does anyone think that her refusal to completely renounce her vote shows her to have the mindset of "stay the course?" I doubt it. We all know that she is as certain to get us out of Iraq as Edwards, Obama, or anyone else. But her level of experience, and her more nuanced view of the world, suggests that she is more likely to be careful and thoughtful enough, so that we get out of Iraq without causing a bigger disaster than what is already there.
She has 22 years of experience as co-executor in the executive branch of either Arkansas or the US, with her husband (before being president for 8 years, Bill was Arkansas Attorney General for 2 years, and then governor of Arkansas for 12 years). She is the only candidate in either party who actually has experience making military and foreign policy. She is the only candidate who has actually had a hand in running a war (the war in Kosovo). She is the only candidate who actually has experience in dealing with Iraq.
Does anyone think that anyone in either party can manage a withdrawal from Iraq as responsibly, and with as little risk, as Hillary? And if no one would be likely to do it as well, then what does it matter if she hasn't renounced the vote forcefully enough? Is a moral victory more important than getting out of Iraq, and not having the entire world explode?
With the debacle that Iraq has turned into, folks just do not remember, or want to remember, the context under which that vote was taken...
Every Democrat, pro- or anti-IWR believed Iraq had WMD's...that was not what the debate surrounded...it was about the best way to deal with it, and how much authority to give Bush...
There is no evidence, none, that Hillary, or Edwards, or Kerry(whose floor statement is very persuasive), were taking their vote any less seriously than opponents. The charge that the 28 Democrats that voted for the IWR were simply playing politics has no foundation in fact...
The fact of the matter is, the IWR was working as these Democrats intended...inspectors had been reinserted and were doing their job...it was George Bush that short-circuited that process and took us to war!!!
I keep saying, every Democrat should read Somerby everyday.
Her war vote, subsequent support for measures stripping Americans of their civil rights, alliance with pro-offshore outsourcing corporations, and other votes with the corporate lobby are far more than correctable errors.
Senator Clinton epitomises political mindset virtually indistinguishable from the Republicans. Sen. Clinton has pursued the path to power through alliances with factions at odds with the interests of the majority of Americans.
Some of us want a real democratic political upheaval -- not the equivalent of palace coup -- or the restoration of a previous dynasty.
I believe that we need seek greater integrity, honesty and true commitment to ideals of democratic populism rather than experience coupled with opportunism and cyncism.
In short, I will support someone as much like Jim Webb as possible. Hillary Clinton is not such a person.
Definition of mistake: to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.
To ask Hillary to say that she made a mistake, then by that definition, is saying that Hillary misunderstood, misinterpreted, or evaluated wrongly the information that the Bush Administration was feeding the American public. I don't think so.
Until we Democrats quit "eating our own" and turn our efforts into discussing the real issues that will get us elected then we'll lose. The real issue is that President George Bush lied to the American public about WMD in Iraq, including Hillary Clinton. How can that be Hillary's mistake?
Over, 3,100 American men and women have given their lives in Iraq based on lies.....le't talk about that.