Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Hillary Clinton's Iraq Vote Does Matter
In response to a series of articles in recent months regarding the foreign policy positions of Senator Hillary Clinton - in which, among other things, I have emphasized her October 2002 vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq - I have received comments such as the following:
"The only mistake Hillary made was to believe what the President told her and that Dubya would not lie about such a national matter involving the military. She chose to believe what he said and the intel presented to her -as did so many others on both sides of the political aisle.... GET OVER IT! It is water under the bridge..."
In reality, however, Hillary Clinton's decision to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in fact is of critical importance and should disqualify her - along with Senator John McCain, who also voted in favor of the war resolution - from ever becoming president.
There have been many tragic consequences of the war for which Senator Clinton and others who made it possible should be held accountable: the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and the tens of thousands permanently wounded; the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed; the hundreds of billions of dollars drained from our national treasury; the social, economic and environmental damage inflicted upon Iraq; the misallocation of human and material resources away from real strategic threats; and, the resulting growth in Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism which will threaten our national security for decades to come .
More importantly, however, is what the decision says about Hillary Clinton's world view: Contempt for International Law
According to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, international treaties signed by the president and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate are to be treated as supreme law of the United States. Among these is the United Nations Charter, long recognized as the most important single document regulating the use of military force in the post-World War II era.
Senator Clinton has defended her vote on the grounds of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions being violated by Iraq. However, in articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, the nations of the world agreed that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of military force. This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing occupation of Kuwait in violation of a series of resolutions demanding withdrawal. When Iraq finally complied through its forced evacuation from Kuwait in February of 1991, this resolution became moot.
Legally, the conflict regarding access for UN inspectors and possible Iraqi procurement of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) had always been between Iraq and the United Nations, not between Iraq and the United States. The United States therefore had no legal right to act on the dispute unilaterally. Although UN Security Council Resolution 687, which demands Iraqi disarmament, was the most detailed in the world body's history, no military enforcement mechanisms were included. Nor did the Security Council specify any military enforcement mechanisms in subsequent resolutions. As is normally the case when it is determined that governments are violating all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about enforcement is a matter for the Security Council as a whole - not for any one member of the council.
While UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, warned of unspecified "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply with the UN disarmament and inspections regime, the resolution also made clear that only the weapons inspectors - not UN member states - had the authority to report Iraqi violations. In the lead-up to the March 2003 U.S. invasion, the inspectors did not report any Iraqi violations of serious consequence. Furthermore, the resolution stated that the Security Council "remains seized of the matter," reiterating the fact that only the council itself had the authority to approve the use of force
It is noteworthy, then, that Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
If Senator Clinton believes the United States can unilaterally claim the right to invade Iraq because of that country's violation of Security Council resolutions, other Council members could logically also claim the right to invade other states that are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions, such as Israel, Morocco, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan and India . Her insistence on the right of the United States to unilaterally invade foreign countries because of alleged violations of UN Security Council resolutions seriously undermines the principle of collective security and the authority of the United Nations and thereby opens the door to international anarchy.
International law is quite clear about when military force is allowed. In addition to the aforementioned case of UN Security Council authorization, the only other time the UN Charter allows a member state to use armed force is described in Article 51, which states that it is permissible for "individual or collective self-defense" against "armed attack...until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Since none of these criteria were met, the U.S. invasion was clearly a violation of the UN Charter, as acknowledged by the UN Secretary General and the majority of member states. Clinton's support for the war, therefore, demonstrates her belief that the United States should not be bound by its international legal obligations.
There is a tradition in customary international law that does allow for a pre-emptive strike for self-defense, but this is only in an indisputable case of a clear and present danger, such as troops massing along a border poised for invasion or missiles being loaded onto launchers in preparation for an attack. It does not, as Senator Clinton claims, give the United States the right to invade a country on the far side of the world based upon unsubstantiated allegations that that country might be developing weapons that might be passed on to terrorists that might then some day be used against us.
The October 2002 war resolution essentially constituted a renunciation of the UN Charter's prohibition against such wars of aggression and effectively constituted a repudiation of the post-WWII international legal order. Hillary Clinton's vote to authorize this illegal invasion, therefore, demonstrates her contempt for international law and is indicative that, as president, she will not hesitate to violate international legal norms in order to advance American hegemony.
Contempt for the Truth
In the months leading up to the Iraq war vote, Senator Clinton was briefed by a number of arms control specialists, former arms inspectors, strategic analysts, and others who informed her that the Bush administration's WMD claims were not to be taken seriously and that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament.
Despite this, in an apparent effort to discredit those questioning the administration's hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military threat and to justify her vote to authorize the invasion, Senator Clinton insisted that Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed." In reality, she knew there were serious doubts about Iraq's purported possession of such weapons at that time and, indeed, no such weapons were ever found.
Similarly, even after the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report prior to the war vote that Iraq no longer had a nuclear program and despite the 2001 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that confirmed there was no evidence that such work on Iraq's nuclear program had resumed, Senator Clinton also defended her vote by claiming that, "If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will . . . keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." In reality, Iraq had completely eliminated its nuclear program a full decade earlier.
Although top strategic analysts also correctly informed her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members." This came despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time.
Clinton's supporters have defended her false pre-invasion allegations by citing the public summary of the 2002 NIE which appeared to confirm some of the Bush administration's claims. However, there were a number of reasons to have been skeptical of this summary: this NIE was compiled in a much shorter time frame than is normally provided for such documents and the report expressed far more certainty regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities than all the reports from the previous five years, despite the lack of additional data to justify such a shift. When the report was released, there was much stronger dissent within the intelligence community than about any other NIE in history and the longer classified version, which was available to every member of Congress, included these dissenting voices from within the intelligence community. It was also well-known through media reports at that time that the administration was applying enormous pressure on the intelligence agencies to put together a report emphasizing the alleged Iraqi threat.
Despite this, the NIE also challenged the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq's WMDs. However, Senator Clinton didn't even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn't necessary for her to have actually looked at the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read it, it's unclear who could have actually briefed her.
Whether Senator Clinton lied in order to frighten the American people into accepting a costly U.S. takeover of that oil-rich country or whether she was simply naíve and ignorant, her false statements regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities - given that this was her central argument in justifying the invasion - raises serious questions regarding her fitness to become president of the United States. There is little reason to doubt, therefore, that she would again be willing to either lie or to blindly accept transparently inaccurate and alarmist intelligence data in order to lead America into another tragic war.
Indeed, Senator Clinton later admitted that she supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq regardless of the fact that Iraq did not really threaten U.S. national security. Many months after the U.S. invasion and the formal acknowledgement that Iraq neither had any WMDs or WMD programs nor any ties to Al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton declared, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote" and was one that "I stand by."
Contempt for Good Judgment
Senator Clinton was also briefed by scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. Few people familiar with Iraq have been at all surprised that the U.S. invasion has become such a tragedy. Therefore, claims by Senator Clinton that she was unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.
Indeed, one need not be an expert on the Middle East to recognize that a U.S. invasion and occupation of a large Arab country with such a strong tradition of nationalism and resistance to outsiders result in a major insurgency.
Senator Clinton also naively accepted the idea that the Bush administration - which was serving as the primary foreign backer of the autocratic Mubarak government in Egypt, Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, the family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the medieval sultanate of Oman, the military regime of Pakistan, and the crypto-communist rulers of Uzbekistan - was sincerely motivated to promote democracy in Iraq. She also failed to recognize that a unilateral invasion and occupation by a Western power with such a record of supporting repressive regimes around the world and with a growing dependence on imported natural resources located within the country in question would be seen by the subjected population not as liberators to be welcomed but as conquerors to be resisted.
Clinton also appeared to naively assume that a stable liberal democracy could flourish in a country that had never had a democratic government, that was an artificial creation thrown together from three Ottoman provinces by colonial powers and that had only been truly independent for 45 years, and where fighting between Arabs and Kurds and between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands in recent decades. She also assumed that the right-wing neoconservatives in the Bush administration would have the ability and interest in creating conditions that could lead to a stable democratic system.
Clearly, then, despite her much-touted "experience," Senator Clinton has demonstrated, through her support for the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a profound ignorance of the reality of the Middle East and an arrogant assumption that peace, stability and democratic governance can be created through the application of U.S. military force.
Hillary Clinton's World View
The 2002 vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not like the vote on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the use of force against North Vietnam, for which Congress had no time for hearings or debate and for which most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents. By contrast, prior to her vote in support of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Senator Clinton had many months to investigate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a U.S. invasion. She also surely recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period.
In voting to authorize the invasion of Iraq, then, Senator Clinton has offered a clear demonstration of how she would approach international affairs and security policy:
* the United States need not abide by its international legal obligations, including those prohibiting wars of aggression;
* claims by right-wing Republican officials and unreliable foreign exiles regarding a foreign government's military capabilities are a more legitimate basis for analyzing possible security threats than are empirical studies by independent arms control analysts and United Nations inspectors;
*concerns expressed by scholars and others knowledgeable of the likely reaction by the subjected population to a foreign conquest and the likely complications that would result should be ignored and faith should instead be placed on the occupation policies forcibly imposed upon that population by a corrupt right-wing Republican administration.
There are also a number of reasons to suspect that, if elected president, Senator Clinton could lead the United States into yet another disastrous war:
* she has refused to apologize for her vote to authorize the invasion, indicating her willingness to support another aggressive war in the future
* she has repeatedly threatened the use of military force against Iran and voted in favor the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which many fear the administration could use as justification for launching military action against that country
* just as she falsely claimed Iraq had a nuclear weapons program back in 2002, she also falsely claimed just last year that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, even though International Atomic Energy Agency and independent arms control specialists at that time, as well as a subsequent NIE report, indicated that this was untrue
As a result, Senator Clinton's October 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq is not simply "water under the bridge." It is very relevant and says a lot about what kind of president she would be.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle East studies.
77 Comments so far
Show AllExcellent article. Factual, convincing, damning, and no way in hell is Ms. Clinton's past behavior "water under the bridge". It's also a nice backhander to the growing crop of head-in-the-sanders who tell the rest of us to "Get over it.".
Somehow Clinton's original Iraq vote still matters, but it doesn't matter that Barack Obama votes to keep funding the war every chance he gets.
I love this double standard!
Hope! Change ! Audacity! A free pass on every issue!
Unaccountable. Bush, Clinton, all those who supported the war--no one has been held accountable. Why? Because the media is covering for them, the corporate media creates the conditions for all high crimes, indeed, they took part. Ultimately, we need more than an election. We need prosecutions of all those who took us to war. PROSECUTIONS. War crimes trials. I would like to see Wolf Blitzer on trial with Clinton and all the rest.
The problem with Senator Clinton's Iraq vote is that it was made for reasons of followership rather than for reasons of leadership. A lot of people went that way after 9/11.
That said, Barack Obama's opposition to the war should not be the MAIN campaign cry to try to elect him, unless you want every Republican in the country to counter the opposite and try to make security trump everything--as they are tended to do anyway (lacking anything else to run on.)
Barack's long-term judgment and his ability to build a liberal coalition ARE the reasons to elect him. Good judgment about avoiding war? Yes, but much, much more too.
Remember as well, if Hillary is somehow nominated, she's ours to support. Bashing her now is unnecessary.
All we really need is a vote majority for Barack. Let's just work on getting that, and stop playing "small ball" (as Bush was noted for saying.)
This is an excellent, excellent article, especially the discussion of the UN Charter, which seemed to have disappeared from the American imagination during 2002-03, even from the discourse of war opponents. And behind the Charter was also a strong case of selfish national interest that all the "patriots" overlooked. The only kind of American hegemony that world opinion would have tolerated would have been one that upheld international law, including the rights of small countries to be free from attack. Law is a convenient tool for protecting the status quo, which was also in America's interest.
But Clinton knew world opinion and national interest don't make presidents; rich corporations and frightened voters do. She also knew we would easily win and the oil companies would be grateful to their benefactors in Washington DC. Oops! I guess she miscalculated in part.
"Hillary Clinton's decision to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in fact is of critical importance and should disqualify her - along with Senator John McCain..."
Get real, most of the people were in favor of invading, they just did not like how it turned out, how long it has taken or how much it has cost.
Great article. Hey riverman quit monopolizing the discussion. I enjoy reading other peoples opinions but not so much of 1 person. I think the Democrats know that we need military bases in the oil heartlands just as much as the Republicans do that is why all candidates that were for immediate ending of the occupation are not "viable" candidates. Interesting is the farce that we still go through the motions of a "democracy". Tocqueville was right "tyranny will come to America by way of the illusion of choice."
For too many years the forces of greed, those who pathologically seek wealth, power and prestige, have ravaged middle income and poor people as well as our planet.
Their principal tool is the publicly traded for-profit corporation. Their path to power is the flawed US election system. Regulation and tax reform will help limit the damage they cause to people and the planet.
I believe Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress will begin this good work. Hillary Clinton will not do what is necessary, regardless of her rhetoric.
Oscar Priem
"Get real, most of the people were in favor of invading, they just did not like how it turned out, how long it has taken or how much it has cost."
Then most people are ignorant or thugs. Anyone with internet access and a bit of curiosity knew the reasons were trumped up.
HRC's policies are generally better than Obama's but being complicit in the worst gov't decision in my lifetime is not something to forget.
People sweep these decisions under the rug, then wonder why we live in the world we do. Sad.
Excellent, well researched, point by point article. A must read.
Great discussion following. Militantliberal and riverman have it covered. (rm had a right to rant on this one)
Oscar Priem, I entirely agree with you. Add publicly financed campaigns to your list. Then we have a chance of taking back our country without a violent revolution.
Hillary Clinton is clearly part of the problem. Too much ego, too little concern for the common good. She knows how to sound like she cares, but actions speak louder than words. What astounds me is the stubborn blindness of the Hillary lovers. Maybe they just love the idea of a woman for President. I do too, but not a bottom feeder.
kathyodat
-sjc_:
"Get real, most of the people were in favor of invading, they just did not like how it turned out, how long it has taken or how much it has cost."
Wrong, all UN experts and Mideast specialists knew the whole thing was bogus.
Gore, Kennedy, Byrd, Krugman, and many other prominent politicians and pundits saw right through the nonsense and warned.
The largest demonstrations in history took place worldwide against the rush to war: 11 million people in freezing weather.
-Jacob Freeze:Â
"Somehow Clinton's original Iraq vote still matters, but it doesn't matter that Barack Obama votes to keep funding the war every chance he gets"
Senator Clinton had the biggest name recognition of any politician in America, while Obama was totally unknown.
She had a crucial role to play and chose not to. She could have saved America and Iraq from our greatest foreign policy disaster if she had just had some spine and done her job of checking and balancing an executive branch gone amok.
Obama spoke out forcefully in public against the rush to war from the start.
His choice of anti-war advisors means something, as does Hillary's choice of Blackwater, Big Oil, Pharma and Murdoch-infested money and Bush-Democrat advice.
Barack Obama keeps trumpeting his opposition to the war in Iraq before he was elected to the Senate.
After he was elected, he adopted a "go along to get along" attitude, and voted to fund the war every chance he got.
Compared to real anti-war candidates like Kucinich, Obama is just another sold-out Washington hustler.
sorry danielDavid, we do part here.
this issue is primaary for me and hillary is not "ours to support".
i will support obama for his position on iraq, i will not ever support hillary in any small way for precisly the argument laid out in this artiicle. i am not a blind democrat.
-Jacob Freeze: "Compared to real anti-war candidates like Kucinich, Obama is just another sold-out Washington hustler."
Compared to Billary, Obama did not go to bed with Bush and Cheney for the past 7 years.
Of course we'd all on CommonDreams love to have Kucinich in the White House, but that doesn't mean every other candidate is identical.
There are degrees of collaboration and guilt and freshness.
Hillary demonstrates bad judgment on many things - remember HillaryCare? - not just the Iraq vote. All her vaunted experience is overrated IMO. I like her as a person but she surrounds herself with expensive, status quo people who constantly give her bad advice. It's edifying that she has met her match in Barack Obama, who - for all his faults - has proven deftly able to trumph her supposed long suit of experience, at least on the campaign trail.
Earth to Jacob Freeze:
Kucinich endorsed Obama.
This is an excellent, excellent, excellent article...easily one of the best I have ever read on CDs....Corporate Media has covered for these War Criminal Bastards INSIDE Amerikka only, [notwithstanding a few accomplice Coalition Government's Administrations]
But outside Amerikka, 1.3 Billion Muslims looking on at this Human Tragedy called Iraq; know the real truth...
As Aldous Huxley famously said, "And you shall know the truth and the truth will send you mad.."
The only mistake Hillary made was to believe what the President told her
if she's so STOOOPID that george bush was able to fool her, do you think she's be able to stand up to a COMPETENT world leader ???
putin is a LOT SMARTER than george bush
if hillary could be fooled by a nitwit like george, imagine how badly she's screw up against putin
think about it
george bush ain't no rocket surgeon
Good points, free patriot. Except Clinton wasn't fooled. She's lying about that. She's complicit and refuses to admit it. Like her vote against banning cluster bombs and her relationship with Textron, cluster bomb manufacturer.
I also don't think much of her establishment campaign management. Heavy dependence on consultants, wasteful financial decisions. Obama is running a financially tight campaign. Flash forward to the presidency. Who do you want spending our money?
kathyodat
Jacob Freeze-- I don't see the double standard. Barack and others who voted to authorize continued funding were caught in a very tough dilemma. My kid is over there. Did I want him to go and fight a war I knew was wrong from the beginning? Hell no! But Once the war was started and our kids were over there fighting, risking their lives to obey a commander who lied to them, how can we cut the funds to prove the point that Bush was wrong? Barack and the others who voted this way did what they had to do under the circumstances.
Bush is a heartless, greedy, maniac--correction--Bush is just a moron-- Cheney is a heartless, greedy, maniac. He would have let all those kids die rather than bring them home.
I am against the war too, and I am voting for Obama. I support Obama's use of however much money it will take to insure the safety of my son, and others over there, until we can get them home.
If the Democrats nominate Clinton, then America hasn't hit bottom yet, which it needs to do before it can seriously start recovery.
Zunes, what has Obama done to stop the war while in the Senate? Nothing!
What has Obama done to stop the criminal moves by the Bush White House? Not one thing. He wouldn't even support Russ Feingold's tepid move on censure.
Pathetic.
Clinton v. Obama is Coke v. Pepsi. I want the un cola.
Stop making it seem like Obama would be any better.
Wake up.
Jacob Freeze is correct.
Obama is an empty suit; a media/hollywood creation.
"Barack and others who voted to authorize continued funding were caught in a very tough dilemma."
Exactly.
If Obama had voted against the funding bills, how many of us (starting with Hillary Clinton and John McCain) would be targeting him for his disregard for the troops, who are simply a tool of a disasterous foreign policy...?
As noble as it would have been, Obama's one vote against funding would have had been of no strategic or pragmatic consequence. As Steve points out in the essay above, it's the world view that has to be shifted. That's not going to be accomplished by a few "no" votes on a funding bill, unfortunately.
Cynthia
Calling Obama an "empty suit" is meaningless. If you can't be any more specific, if you don't have any REAL thoughts of substance to contribute to a debate, YOU are an "empty suit."
Pepsi vs coke? Good idea! Why not take your own advice.
If you want to know the facts of Obama's record, take the pepsi challenge. Go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ and read his policy statements. Compare them to the policy statements of whomever you like. Read, understand, and analyze. Process some real thought. I am certain when you study his policies for yourself, you will see they are more sound than those of anyone else you can name.
formernadervoter says:
"Clinton v. Obama is Coke v. Pepsi. I want the un cola.
Stop making it seem like Obama would be any better.
Wake up."
formernadervoter, wake up to Billary's all pro-war team of advisors, as opposed to Obama's anti-war team.
Look also at the military-industrial-Murdoch money behind her as opposed to Obama's grassroots and MoveOn support.
I see different values there.
Compare the tightness and efficiency of both campaigns. Big difference.
The values and organization of the team in the White House can produce a difference of trillions of dollars wasted and millions of wounded lives, which surely you dont think is trivial.
You are doing a repeat of Nader's smug Gore=Bush line, which he has since recognized as mistaken.
Prof. Zunes's logic which "raises serious questions regarding her fitness to become president of the United States", should also disqualify Sen. McCain as a worthy candidate for the Presidency since he has supported George W. in his pre emtive war efforts and McCain's solution for Iran is: bomb bomb bomb Iran!
I am a registered Republican, intending to vote for Obama.
apologize for duplicate posts, my edit function is not functioning....
Anyone who actually believed what that the lying cabal that occupy the White House had to say does not deserve my vote and did not get it!
Brilliant article thankyou Steven Zunes - for meticulously unpacking what really happened, and the US govt's sleight of hand and trickery during that horrible time of the preemptive attack on Iraq. America needs a new set of values and people in the white house please - its important for the whole world. No man is an island. From here it looks like Hillary is not trustworthy, is hard hearted and Barrack is a genuine force for change, an orator with sincere compassion and a vision for the good. Sure he's being groomed by PR people too but he is tapping into the goodness of American culture, JFK's idealism and MLK's humanity and dream. Its the best chance you've got to kick the neocon warmongers from controlling America's future - which impacts on all of us. Rangimarie/Peace
I am thrilled to have seen this article spell out so clearly what I knew already.
Hillary did not just "make a few mistakes". Instead she has calculatingly ridden the media's pro war hype as a way to enhance her career and attract AIPAC directed campaign funds. She did not give a shit to the consequences to people who dont have access to our media.
She qualifies for my definition of evil. Want to judge a person? Then notice how they treat those who do not have the means to fight back in any way.
I didn't plan to vote for Senator Clinton anyway. I certainly didn't know what knowledge she had about the Iraq situation in 2002.
I am not a rocket scientist, nor a world professor, but Bush's lies didn't fool me. It's comedy for Clinton, an astute lawyer and senator, to claim she was duped by an alcolic, drug addit, draft-dodgging, consertive Christain.
"Clinton's support for the war, therefore, demonstrates her belief that the United States should not be bound by its international legal obligations."
Professor Zunes is a classic spin-doctor. Notice how Hillary is singled out for her support of the war but Obama who has an almost identical record of voting to fund the war is never mentioned. This is a case study in spin-doctoring. Pots calling kettles black.
Clinton and Obama should both be condemned for funding the war. Let's not stop with Hillary Spin Doctor Zunes. Don't forget to condemn your hero Sen. Barak Obama who as culpable as Hillary. Sen. Obama has declared he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been a senator when the war vote came. My guess is that if he had voted for it you'd ignoring this topic altogether. Let's at least appear to be fair. Thanks Doc.
By most people, I meant most Americans. American voters are the only ones that can elect a U.S. president. The assertion by the author was that they should be disqualified to run for U.S. president, which is bull.
Just look at the polls. Back in 2002 most Americans were in favor of the action, by 2006 most were against it. If it had turned out better, most would still have been in favor of it.
Stephen Zunes
I am also convinced that Hillary Clinton so strongly supported the invasion of Iraq because she perceived it as a continuation, ratcheted up several magnitudes, of Bill Clinton's policy toward Iraq. I believe she saw the Bush plan as a confirmation of the "rightness" of the Clinton years, after suffering so much shame at the scandals about Bill's pecadillos and his lying to her.
And no way can she claim that she was "fooled" by Bush's lies -- she forcefully repeated them as though there were NO questions about their veracity in speeches to America and Congress despite all the warnings she'd had, and her willingness to illegally "warmonger" was made crystal clear by her Iran vote.
In both cases, she has approved of illegal war-making, and for that reason alone, I'd never vote for her.
I wanted Kucinich. Sadly, I wasn't really surprised at how soon he was forced out by the current controllers of who gets what and how far etc.
Obama doesn't look quite so ideal to me as Kucinich of course, but it does mean a lot that Dennis K did endorse Obama.
And anyway, Barack Obama does seem much much more promising that HRC who simply would never move me to vote for her! (I might have had to vote Green or something ...)
And thank you, Mr Zunes for your fine and informative article; I couldn't agree more with all of it, including your quite reasonable conclusions on what we would have to expect from HRC if she were given the power and opportunity to abuse it!
And I can't forget what damages Bill Clinton et al did to our US middle class (not to mention working class -- oh God!) etc. Those policies and deals etc have done tremendous harm to ordinary people.
Then there were the half a million Iraqi babies and youngsters who died because of the sanctions Clinton enforced against them -- those innocents -- the ones Madeleine Albright said she thought it was 'worth it' to sacrifice in support of that punishing policy ...
with that kind of 'compassion' who needs republicans?! Revolt yourself, Madeleine; you and the Clintons can go to hell! You'd all be behind bars if we could exercise a little justice yet in our land of the brave!!
tailcap said: "Professor Zunes is a classic spin-doctor. Notice how Hillary is singled out for her support of the war but Obama who has an almost identical record of voting to fund the war is never mentioned. This is a case study in spin-doctoring...Clinton and Obama should both be condemned for funding the war. Let's not stop with Hillary Spin Doctor Zunes. Don't forget to condemn your hero Sen. Barak Obama who as culpable as Hillary. Sen. Obama has declared he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been a senator when the war vote came. My guess is that if he had voted for it you'd ignoring this topic altogether. Let's at least appear to be fair."
tailcap, you obviously have not been a longtime reader of Steve Zunes's work. His analysis is some of most contextualized and historically grounded out there. Since his primary area is foreign policy and Middle Eastern geopolitics, I doubt he'd be ignoring Iraq regardless of who was in the race. Anyway, to talk about "fairness" is besides the point and a bit disingenuous. This presidential election is of probably the greatest historical significance in 100 years. It will very likely be the key variable in the question of whether the United States continues to veer off the evolutionary course of the rest of the world or whether we rejoin the global community. Zunes is a public intellectual, and part of his job is to put these kinds of issues into perspective for us, whether you agree with his conclusions or not. This is too important to worry about being "fair." If you feel so strongly about the need for balance, why don't you write something in support of your candidate or that responds to Zunes, and get it published?
That being said, there is a fundamental, substantive difference between voting to invade and to continue to provide funding once the occupation has commenced. One is overt support for an act of aggression, the other is not. Regardless of how many times you repeat that there's no difference between those two things, that does not make it true. Had the invasion not occured, the question of funding would be moot.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, even if Obama had made a principled stand against the Iraq occupation by voting against continuing to fund it, it 1) would have been of no strategic consequence for the policy. What needs to be changed is the paradigm about war as foreign policy, but one vote by Obama was not going to change that and 2) it would have worked against him (Obama) politically because it would be grounds to say that he is taking out his opposition to Bush on the troops. The troops need to be pulled out, not made more vulnerable. If anything, Obama's behavior could be characterized as the most humane of the (very bad) options presented to every U.S. legislator who is opposed to the Iraq policy.
Cynthia
Thank you, Professor Zunes for unraveling the Hillary Clinton myth about her contribution to the Bush Crime Family in waging "crimes against humanity" in Iraq and her disregard for International Law. I maybe dumbbell magoo, but I do know any attorney worth their salt read contracts and declarations before signing them. When you said she didn't read the 92 page 'NIE', but was briefed by someone else, can that be construed as a plea of willfull ignorance? All die-hard Clinton supporters; please look at her support for the "coward-in-chief" and militaristic stance.
The Reverend Peaceman says "by her votes shall ye know her."
( Disclaimer...don't write to me for spiritual advice, CD'ers.I'm a sinner myself! )
All kidding aside, it should be fairly certain to even the most zealous Clinton supporter that her positions in campaigning and debates are contrary to her voting record in the Senate and her ardent support for the 'military-police state' in America, and imperialism abroad.
Well stated, Mr. Zunes.
Dear Readers: Please pardon my slow editing and repetition -- now I have to re-enter and cannot remove the earlier (uncorrected) version ...
I wanted Kucinich. Sadly, I wasn't really surprised at how soon he was forced out by the current controllers of who gets what and how far etc.
Obama doesn't look quite so ideal to me as Kucinich of course, but it does mean a lot that Dennis K did endorse Obama.
And anyway, Barack Obama does seem much much more promising than HRC who simply would never move me to vote for her! (I might have had to vote Green or something ...)
And thank you, Professor Zunes, for your fine and informative article; I couldn't agree more with all of it, including your quite reasonable conclusions on what we would have to expect from HRC if she were given the increased power and expanded opportunities to abuse it!
And I still can't forget what damages Bill Clinton et al did to our US middle class (not to mention working class -- oh God!). Their policies and deals have done tremendous harm to ordinary people -- including demolishing what little 'safety net' security we had while increasing the power and abuse by the corporate owners, etc.
Then there were the half a million Iraqi babies and youngsters who died because of the sanctions Clinton enforced against them -- those poor vulnerable innocents -- the ones Madeleine Albright said she thought it was 'worth it' to sacrifice in support of their punishing policies ...
with that kind of 'compassion' who needs republicans?! Revolt yourself, Madeleine; you and the Clintons can go to hell! You'd all be behind bars if we could exercise a little justice yet in our land of the brave!!
We the people will keep trying to get America back on track, going forward with the promise of achieving the justice we continue to cherish!! And we refuse to be fooled by the corrupt criminals who always try to usurp our inherent power for their own wicked self-interests!!
Obama is fake change.
Read "Obama's Money Cartel" by Pam Martens.
Five of his top contributors are registered lobbyists and the mainstream media is letting him get away with the lie that his campaign is not connected to lobbyists.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601
Hilary got onto the Senate Armed Services Committee because she wanted to show she was a good "commander in chief" and she as a woman thought that she could not afford to vote against the war if she wanted that presidency.
Obama had a lot at risk speaking up in his speech Oct 2002 ( look up that speech under Obama Oct 2002 speech)against the war because he was about to run for the Senate and all the others like Clinton,Edwards and Kerry were already incumbents and they had less to loose-- we all know how hard it its to kick out incumbents.
It was perfectly possible to vote against that war over 130 Congressmen and Senators did it. You and I knew it was totally WRONG to unleash the dogs of war!!!!
Obama has confidence in a reasonable position-- he feels grounded and secure in his opinion. John Kerry also ran as another militant war hero and that is why he lost. Obama is not into this charade and only lately they say that anybody even talks about this "commander in chief"job of the President. Maybe "educator in chief" is a better description of what the President is supposed to be doing--move people along the right decisions in including support for talking to enemies and not using military force lightly and winning the hearts and minds of the 1 billion muslims. Maybe that later reason was by 65% of the oversea voters endorsed Obama.
It's about judgement, character, authenticity not about "experience" - you can hire anybody who has the right experience to be on the team.
Also, Clinton has a lot of fluff laws that she created in her 8 years in the Senate like naming a postoffice, honoring a sports team, naming the day of the week after somebody or some cause-- Obama does substancial, focused legislation.
Excellent spot-on analysis by Stephen Zune. It is refreshing that the Democrats appear headed to nominate someone who not only pledges to end the war but did not VOTE FOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE WAR! Versus McCain who is happy with 100 more years of Americans being cannon fodder, let alone the horrific effects on the ravaged people of Iraq.
Daniel Ellsberg has fewer illusions about power than about anyone. But here is Ellsberg on Obama:
"I think Obama offers hope not only on the basis of his appearance, but because of the uncertainty of what he's saying. I do buy into his hopes. I don't know what he'll do, but maybe he'll do something right for a change. We know that McCain is not an agent of change and when Obama says Hillary Clinton doesn't sound like an agent for change, he's right. She sounds very hawkish to me. She says she's equipped to stand up immediately and be the commander in chief. What are her qualifications to say that? She was the wife of the commander in chief? If those are qualifications, then Laura Bush is more qualifed than Obama. Obama is on good ground with regard to Iraq. He showed much better judgment than Clinton. There's hope in that."
-- Daniel Ellsberg, Feb. 21, 2008
(in an interview on www.minnPost.com also accessible at www.antiwar.com)
Cynthia707 February 23rd, 2008 7:21 pm
Professor Zunes is an outstanding scholar. I couldn't even begin to hold a candle anywhere near him, nor do I have the credentials to get my opinions published. Having said that, it doesn't mean my point of view isn't valid. I am not a WMD specialist but I could have told you the invasion of Iraq wasn't about WMD, without needing to read an NSA report. Somethings don't take brain surgeons to figure out. Just because someone has more education and more credentials doesn't mean they don't spin their version and it doesn't mean they are right about every issue. I do not claim anything Zunes said is factually incorrect. It is misleading, and that's called spin Cynthia.
Professor Zunes is implying that Sen. Clinton is a war hawk and Obama (although omitted) must be by contrast, an anti-war candidate. That is spin. To me they are both pro-war candidates. Both candidates are very similar in voting records and policy proposals and differ in detail only. Secondly, Obama actually wants to increase the size of the military.
From his web site I quote: " if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." In other words, he plans to continue the dirty work of empire.
Any rational person can see that the election of Obama as president isn't going to result in al Qaeda turning tail and quiting Iraq. That means Sen. Obama will keep tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq fighting and dying to protect Big Oil, the US embassy, prop up the colonial-style Iraqi "government", and kill "insurgents" (people protecting their country from invaders). They will come home eventually either dead, maimed or with PTSD.
There you have your Democratic, anti-war candidate, Sen. Barak Obama, Cynthia. Thanks for your thought provoking post. We can agree to disagree.
p.s You are right, I haven't read Zunes very long and some of what I read is quite good. He is an excellent scholar I agree.
p.s.s. I think Sen. Obama is a better candidate than Hillary, but I stand by what I said.
p.s.s.s Obomist want to bury their heads in the sand about the fact he voted to fund the war as if somehow that is okay and doesn't matter. My candidate Dennis Kucinich didn't. Now there is a man of principle.
Cynthia707 February 23rd, 2008 7:21 pm
If you feel so strongly about the need for balance, why don't you write something in support of your candidate or that responds to Zunes, and get it published?
Thanks so much Cynthia, you made a really good point. I should be writing in support of a candidate not wasting my time writing against one. I have been waiting and wishing Ralph Nader would jump in. If not there is Cynthia McKinney and Mike Gravel. I went to Gravel's site and saw that he sounds way better than either Obama or Clinton on Iraq which is my signature issue.
How Mike Stands on the Issues
The War in Iraq
Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 120 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.
tailcap,
Cynthia Mckinney is a brave and couragous woman and I would feel comfortable with her as the nation's top executive. Mike Gravel has more integrity than the majority of Democrats and listening to him speak is refreshing. Like Kucinich or Nader, Gravel can motivate people, but more importantly, he is armed with knowledge and the truth.
If tweedle dee or tweedle dum is elected in November, we'll all be blogging on Common Dreams for four more years, lamenting about it.
Tailcap
I couldn't agree more ...
I too, unlike most Obama supporters apparently, have read his platform on Iraq, and the writing on the digital wall is abundantly clear: his plan it to end the war by continuing the war at a reduced level.
At least McCain has the huevos to be honest about his imperialist intentions.
I won't be voting for a DemPub this fall, that much is certain.
HC is proof that women are just as corrupt and murderous as any man.
Hmm, maybe the Republicans might want her.
McCain/Clinton!
There is no comparison between Clinton and Obama on this one. She actively promoted war, most likely at the behest of the Israeli government, much as she supports war with Iran at their insistence. The ironic thing about that is that they bribe her with our money. The worst thing you can say about Obama is that he might be nearly as bad as Hillary but that is not likely. She is every bit as bad as Hillary and that is too disgusting to even contemplate. Dick Cheney in a skirt basically.
"In reality, however, Hillary Clinton's decision to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in fact is of critical importance and should disqualify her - along with Senator John McCain, who also voted in favor of the war resolution - from ever becoming president."
Wrong. Wrong. Wrongheaded.
THAT'S not what should disqualify Herself. This Bush-war was a big-favor to a country besieged by her sorta-ex, and the 'soft-power' Clinton-era did far MORE damage&death to Iraq than TWO of Bush's-Wars ever-could (Ask Mad Albright). She just voted to give them a 'break' (and they needed one, hard-times are ahead!).
There are many-and-sundry reasons Herself SHOULD be disqualified from being anything other than Jailed -- but her votes on Iraq ain't them.
These neo-Libs are FAR more dangerous-as-killers than neo-Cons ever could Dream-of. The stroke of Clinton's-Montblanc is, indeed, 'far mightier than any sword' (or even-Nuke). And, she's influenced by WalMart, Monsanto, Lockheed, Murdoch, and a certain Rhodes-Scholar (and, if you don't know what that implies, Google the Rhodes family/business-ties, and Google Bilderberg/Clinton-ties, while at-it).
"The British are coming, the British are coming!"
[By Land and by Sea, and (worse) via Bankers!]