I don't understand why people are so hung up on her not apologizing for the vote. While I personally don't agree with the war, Hillary, like most of the senators, "believed" that Iraq posed imminent threat and therefore voted to allow Bush to wage war if necessary. We could debate the merit of preemptive strike all day long, but the issue is that the war was poorly planned and executed. Had we had a different commander in chief, we could have a much different picture in Iraq. The really mistake that she and everybody else in Congress made was to allow Bush be in charge of the war, and not necessarily the vote itself. If she doesn't believe that the vote was wrong, why do we feel the need to force her to apologize for it?
If she doesn't believe that the vote was wrong, why do we feel the need to force her to apologize for it?
Because her vote helped kill 750,000 Iraqis for no particular reason, and she ought to realize that's a bad thing.
Hindsight is always clearer. She has said many times that if we had known what we know today (i.e. no wmd), there would not be a vote then. I guess her explanation is not enough for most of the people here, but it's sufficient for me. Like she said, there are no do-overs in life.
1. the vote was wrong or right (at the time) - she could either defend her vote (at the time it was the right vote) or say she's wrong
vs. 2. well there wouldn't have been a vote if we knew than what we know now.
an interpretation of her defense is she thinks she made the right decision but the war was managed badly or we were misled.
that is not really accounting for it, and the media (and GOP) should she get through the primary will NOT let her avoid it forever.
What difference does it make if she comes out now and says explicitly that she believes that the war was right given what we knew at the time? How is that statement any different than what she has already said? I would rather see someone sticking to a view that I don't necessarily agree with, than someone who claims that he's made a mistake and take full responsibility. What does that even mean? He thought that it was a mistake to vote for the war even though he was convinced that the time that Iraq posed an imminent threat? What does it mean that he is taking full responsibility?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623. html
Edwards' reason is simple, the intell was wrong, if Iraq was no imminent threat - to the US - it would be a mistake to go in.
Hillary leaves open the possibility that even if Iraq was not a threat she buys into some of the neocon ideals and getting rid of saddam to protect Israel is worth it.
who knows, she should write a letter like this one.
do you have such a link?
Yes, the intel was wrong. They both voted for the war based on faulty intel. She should not have to apologize for mistakes or lies that the Bush administration fed to the Congress. I've always had doubts on the intel before the war, but it's not unreasonable for people to belive that the president of this country was telling the truth.
My Mother has a saying: (I think she got it from The Power Of One, but she won't admit it.)
"First with the facts. Then comes the trust."
There was no reason to trust the president at that time. And no need. They could have voted no and said to come back when you are finished with all the diplomatic actions you can do.
You seem to be missing the POINT(S)!
Her APOLOGY is NOT the issue here, please get over that red herring.
What's at issue, what we are reviewing here is a) her reflective arguments on 'important' judgements she's made, b) her ability or inability to learn from past mistakes or judgements, and c) her qualifications for the job. Also, her recent AIPAC speech reveals a certain level of 'uncertainty' and lack of knowledge on foreign policy which is worrisome.
You see for Hillary NOT to admit she was wrong about her vote, her vote for war speaks volumes to me.
In 2002, Hillary Clinton, a junior senator at the time, decided to vote for the war resolution, however, it's important to note that there were a fair number of Democrats that did not vote for the war, their assessments and ultimate conclusions (on the same information that Hillary had) being relevant, in my mind, why Hillary is not qualified to be our Presidential candidate.
Please recall, for example, what Senator Bob Graham, distinguished and 'experienced' member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who voted NO presented to Congress AND HIS FELLOW DEMOCRATS.
Senator Bob Graham (D): "...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein." Graham argued that Saddam posed no immediate threat to U.S. security and that an invasion of Iraq would divert attention and resources from the larger war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places where al-Qaida had training bases...
"...I voted against the resolution - not because our nation has nothing to fear from Hussein but because I am convinced that the resolution misstates our national priorities in a dangerous way. Right now the most urgent threats to our security are posed by the shadowy networks of international terrorist organizations that have the capabilities to repeat the tragedy of Sept. 11 - not Saddam Hussein."
Graham argued that Saddam posed no immediate threat to U.S. security and that an invasion of Iraq would divert attention and resources from the larger war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places where al-Qaida had training bases...
Those words, those principles that are so fundamental to our national security hold true today as they did back then.
BECAUSE, Hillary did not listen to his words or his judgement, and STILL will not acknowledge her misplaced judgement on the war, tells me she has some serious deficiencies in the decision making department.
So, when Hillary at her recent AIPAC dinner event was ratcheting up the WAR TALK saying that NOW 'IRAN' is the most dangerous bogeyman on the planet, and also informs us that she doesn't even "know enough about how Iranian society and their government really functions." - this brings up red flags for me that she has STILL has not LEARNED from her past mistakes, and is heading down the same path as her Iraq mistake.
I just don't think she's got what it takes. For her to even question, even hesitate that talking to Iran might NOT be the "smartest move" -- in public even -- should send off huge warning bells. That she never mentioned our European or ME allies in DIPLOMACY. That she appeared so concerned about 'acting' all tough by clinging to rhetoric more akin to Bush than an international stateswoman does not bode well for the leader of our troops or the free world.
I mean does she really think we can take Iran on by ourselves? IRAN being 3x's the size of Iraq and has a million strong army?
I can see Iraq all over again with her, except disaster coming back to the US ten-fold. I truly believe she is not qualified to be President or head of OUR National Security.
Edwards: I'm sorry I was misled.
Clinton: I was misled, so I'm not at fault.
They both have a point, but kudos to Edwards for owning up to the fact that it was a bad vote.
It is only very recently (the past couple of weeks) that she has said that if she had known what we now known etc., she wouldn't have voted the way she did. Previously she had been saying that if she had known etc., there never would have been a vote and that has also been fairly recent. Her hindsight doesn't seem to be much better than her foresight on this issue. Maybe if she had been a leading critic of the war at the beginning (why wasn't she since she claims she didn't vote for a preemptive war?) or if she had been an early critic of the mishandling of the occupation then she might be more believable. Instead she just looks like a politician trying to find the right thing to say that will keep her poll numbers up. Also, while there may be no do-overs in life there are ample opportunities to make things right.
only say whether it was the right vote at the time or not.
Yeah -- the question: Are you AIPAC sponsored regime changer or not?
If she won't accuse Bush of being a hard-core con artist on this topic, she is welding her lips to Bush's rear. Her vote was wrong; she should not have been conned into doing it, if she was conned.
Of course, the real answer may be that she was a right-wing triangulator from the jump, truth be damned. Which is fine, except most of us don't really want the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to grow. We want to see the hawks wither, not see them sworn in. She and Bush have in common that neither one of them ever made a mistake, not once. Good riddance to both.
>We could debate the merit of preemptive strike all day long, but the issue is that the war was poorly planned and executed.
I don't think that's the issue at all. The war was wrong to begin with, and for her role in starting it she should apologize. The fact that Bush mangled the execution is a separate matter.
I don't want a Democratic President who essentially believes the Bush-McCain doctrine but thinks it needs to be implemented more competently.
whether or not hillary repudiates her vote goes to does she believe in some of the neocon premises or not? or is her regret that Bush is incompetent?
That is exactly the issue. As Richardson said last weekend, "The Iraq War isn't the disease. Iraq is a symptom."
Folks like Hillary don't seem to be wrapping their heads around the fact that the idea of invading Iraq was a bad one even with the information we had at the time.
And the "there are no do-overs" bit actually makes me angry. It's far too close to the "let's not play the blame game" stuff that we hear from certain quarters. And almost flip when you consider the consequences for the Iraqi people and America.
This is extremely important to discuss and work through because we need to understand that the folks running our country won't do anything like that ever again. Clinton's answers are far too dismissive for me to take seriously the idea that she has truly learned the folly of excess militarism and saber-rattling.
I tell ya, if someone sat down with me and had me design a campaign that would turn me off from a candidate, it'd look pretty close to Clinton's.
I'm not hung up on her not apologizing for the vote. I'm hung up on her vote.
It was wrong then and it is wrong now. The only way she will gets some of our votes back is to apologize (but not mine). The issue isn't that the war was poorly planned and executed. The issue is that we went to war in the first place. She enabled that. She voted to send American forces into harms way based on trust of Bush. It was a mistake then and she is getting rightly called to task for it still.
No amount of planning would have made things much better. If you are going to introduce a democracy in a region used to dictatorship, you have to mentor a local movement and identify credible local leaders somehow. The Chalabi move was one of the key failures. I knew how crooked Chalabi was. Are you telling me Hillary who spent the entire 90s in the white house , represented NY, and was familiar with the AIPAC type people up close, had no clue that the BUsh people did not go into this with the right mind?
So maybe she does not deserve to be elected for being that dense for so long. Forget an apology. Even as late as the 2004 reelction, she did not budge one bit when Russert interviewed her on IRaq.
