CLINTON II : Parsing Clinton's History On Iraq

So -- has Hillary Clinton been consistent about the Iraq war?

You be the judge.

October, 2002: HRC votes for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. In her floor speech and subsequent speeches justifying her vote, HRC often evoked 9/11 by reminding people that she is a senator from NY who "has seen all too closely the consequences of [the] terrible attacks on our national and balancing the risks of action versus inaction. I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more in turn to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Clinton protects herself for future attacks against her position. [RIKI PARIKH and MARC AMBINDER]

More from the 10/10/02 speech: "Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option." But there are "problems" with an approach that works entirely through the United Nations, because "recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons." Clinton said that "the best course" is for the US to first go before the UN with a tough resolution. If Saddam didn't comply, "then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise." More Clinton: "I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial." Because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons, "A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq." Clinton ends by saying she'd take Pres. Bush "at his word" that "he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible." More Clinton: "If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

A side note, she admitted: "This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." -- and this, too: "My vote 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 throughout the world."

The day after the vote, Clinton explained that she "ultimately decided voting for the authorization would be more likely to avoid war than not," hoping that her vote would act as a message to the president to work with the UN and show allies that the U.S. "is willing to take action." She did point out that her vote was based on the WMDs claim: "The idea there was a regime ... with this kind of weaponry and this kind of intention could not be ignored" (Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, 10/12/02)

2003
In 11/03, HRC said the U.S. had to "stay the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan and said that more troops were needed to fight the war: "The Pentagon tried to make do with as few troops as possible, as light a footprint as they could get away with. Now, we're playing catchup." In a 10/03 letter to New Yorkers, Clinton said: "A regime change in needed in Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a threat to American security." In a 12/03 interview with ABC's "This Week," HRC said that there was "no doubt" that the U.S. would be in Iraq "for years." But she also said: "Will we remain there as an occupier?"

After Saddam Hussein is captured, HRC expressed pride about her Iraq vote. "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," she said to the Council on Foreign Relations (12/15/03). She said then of the situation in Iraq that she was "a little optimistic and a little pessimistic. ... We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

To the Council of Foreign Relations on 10/31/03, she said: "it is time to insist that the Iraqis to take the lead and demonstrate to the Iraqi people that the U.S. will not be in Iraq permanently and that American troops will not be put in the crossfire of a civil war. Phased redeployment will get the attention of the Iraqi leadership."

2004
To Larry King: "I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem or the international community for more than a decade.... The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared" (4/20/04).

2005
In 11/05, HRC said that "we have to tell this new government we are not going to be there forever, we are going to be withdrawing our young men and women and we expect you to start moving towards stability." But she said that immediate withdrawal would be a "big mistake."

"I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you" (Village Voice, 9/22/05). The Journal notes the rise of Cindy Sheehan during this period; if HRC was simply following public opinion, why didn't she pronounce herself in favor of a troop withdrawal now?

In a letter to constituents, HRC writes that Congress would not have voted yes if they knew then what they knew now. "I have continually raised doubt about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war, while standing firmly in support of our troops" (11/29/05).

2006
HRC said Bush "rushed to war" and calls for a "plan to bring our troops home." However: "I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment which I think does not put enough pressure on the Iraqi government, nor do I think it is a smart policy to set a date certain" (6/15/06).

While other Dems were calling for a withdrawal, Clinton continued to promote a policy of phased redeployment.

That was when she was running for reelection.

2007
Following Pres. Bush's surge plan, HRC began calling for a withdrawal of troops to "demonstrate to the Iraqis that we don't have an open-ended commitment" (New York Daily News, 1/14). However, on 1/18, HRC said: "I'm not going to support a specific deadline" (New York Sun). Instead, she called for a cap on the forces and threatened to cut funding to Iraqi forces, stopping short of calling for cuts for American troops.

A week later, candidate Clinton began saying Bush should "extricate" U.S. troop in Iraq before he leaves office in '09. Is that a date certain? While's still not a withdrawal, it is more forceful language than she has used before.

The official word: "Senator Clinton has been a forceful critic of the Iraq war," Howard Wolfson, her communications director, said in an e-mailed response. "She has supported a phased redeployment of our troops to start bringing them home and has strongly opposed President Bush's escalation of the war by proposing a cap on troops" (Newsday, 2/12).

This weekend in NH: "Knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for the war. I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistake was by this President who misled the Congress."

Note: HRC submitted legislation calling for the US to cut funding to Iraqi security forces if they failed to meet certain benchmarks to be determined by Congress. If the Iraqi troops indeed fail to meet these benchmarks, then Congress would vote on another authorizing resolution for American troops.