Hilary Clinton did not support Bush's attack on Iraq

Paul: OK now we have two sources:

1.David Brooks of the New York Times,
2.This article from Media Matters tries to clarify the mistaken accusation against Hillary Clinton that she supported the President in his preemptive attack on Iraq. She did not. She supported more weapon inspectors and UN led diplomacy. Paul Grant (follower of Basho)


#1
Clinton's Vote Explained
Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks "went back and read" Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech on the Iraq war resolution and was surprised by what he found.

"On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community 'should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.' Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

"She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

"This is how she’s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, I’ve regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn’t everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind. I also know, from a third person, that she was spending a lot of time with Powell and wanted to help."



#2
ABC's Tapper claimed "inherent contradiction" in Clinton's Iraq statements but left out context refuting his claim

Summary: Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's statements prior to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Tapper's report suggested that Clinton had not advocated further U.N. inspections in Iraq before an invasion, but she did so in the same 2002 interview from which Tapper quoted.

On the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Specifically, Tapper juxtaposed Clinton's comment during a September 15, 2002, interview that she could "support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security," with this February 11, 2007, statement: "I gave [President Bush] authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." In fact, Clinton did specifically argue in favor of inspections during the very interview from which Tapper quoted. Further, in a Senate floor speech before the 2002 vote, Clinton stated explicitly that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism."

Tapper asserted that Clinton has contradicted herself on Iraq during a segment comparing the "campaign styles" of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). From Tapper's report, which appeared on the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline:

TAPPER: Clinton assails the war she voted for to appeal to anti-war liberals.

CLINTON: It is, without a doubt, one of the most painful challenges that we have faced in our country because of the arrogance and incompetence of our administration in Washington.

TAPPER: While Obama seems more centrist than his record and views would indicate, Clinton is clearly running to the left. This is what she said about her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq one month before she cast it in 2002.

CLINTON: I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security.

TAPPER: This is what she tells Democratic audiences today.

CLINTON: I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war.

TAPPER: With that inherent contradiction, Clinton faced some tough questions this weekend.

As presented by Tapper, the quote from the 2002 edition of Meet the Press, without more context, leaves the impression that Clinton unequivocally supported pre-emptive military action against Iraq. That impression is false. Tapper juxtaposed that with the 2007 quote -- "I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war" -- pronouncing her statements inherently contradictory.

But as the full Meet the Press interview and her explanation of the vote show, Clinton did voice several assumptions regarding how the Bush administration would proceed, including that full inspections would occur and that the United States would not engage in "any new doctrine of pre-emption." At the beginning of the Meet the Press interview, Clinton made clear that she believed that it was important that inspectors be sent to Iraq and that "it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can." From the interview:

CLINTON: I doubt it. But I do appreciate greatly the president going to the United Nations, making the case, which is really the United Nations' case. And I listened carefully to Secretary [of State Colin] Powell. It's apparent that he's working very hard with the Security Council to come up with a resolution that will set forth an ultimatum, perhaps demand the reintroduction of inspectors and set forth an authorization for force in the event that that doesn't happen.

TIM RUSSERT (host): You would prefer one resolution with those three components?

CLINTON: Well, I'm going to leave that to the secretary and his negotiators. Obviously, that would make it cleaner and faster for everyone, and I hope that's what can come from it. But I know he's working as hard as he can.

[...]

CLINTON: I do think that it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can. I think that's important for the ultimate objective, but then we're going to wait to see how this unfolds over the next several of weeks.

Clinton further explained her position in a Senate floor statement on October 10, 2002 -- the day before the Senate approved the Iraq resolution:

CLINTON: Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform. ... However, this course is fraught with danger ... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.

Clinton advocated that the Bush administration seek a U.N. resolution calling for "complete, unlimited inspections," adding that if Saddam ultimately did not comply with the strict U.N. measure, "we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy":

CLINTON: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. ... If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated ... If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

Clinton went on to acknowledge that the Iraq resolution was "not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first," but stated that she trusted Bush would gain a U.N. resolution requiring full inspections before proceeding with military action:

CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.

Finally -- just as she claimed in the 2007 statement included in the ABC report -- Clinton clarified that her vote in favor of the Iraq resolution did not represent support "for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism":

CLINTON: This is a 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. ... 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, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

—J.K.

Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon

Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon


Helena Smith in New York
Wednesday June 11, 2003
The Guardian

Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.

In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.

Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much.

"It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."

In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:

·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;

·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and

·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.

Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."

Before he had even flown to Iraq to relaunch the sensitive weapons inspections after a four-year hiatus last November, senior US defence department officials were excoriating the septuagenarian as the worst possible choice for the post.

It was just the beginning. By autumn, the happily married father of two was being branded in Baghdad as a "homosexual who went to Washington every two weeks to pick up [his] instructions".

"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.

A lot of the sniping "surely came" from the Pentagon, said Mr Blix, who has since won plaudits for his handling of the unenviable brief of divining whether Iraq had disarmed.

Staff attached to the UN monitoring and inspection commission, headed by the Swede for the past three years, openly say there is no love lost between hawks in the Bush administration and their mission.

Mr Blix, a former foreign minister, prefers to remain sanguine. "By and large my relations with the US were good," he said, reiterating his belief that the Iraqi regime would likely never have complied with any of the UN resolutions around disarmament had it not been for the presence of 200,000 US troops in the region.

"But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us," he conceded, hoping the inspectors would employ more damning language in their reports to swing votes on the UN security council.

Washington, he claimed, was particularly upset that the UN team did not "make more" of the discovery of cluster bombs and drones in March.

He said Washington's disappointment at not getting UN backing for an attack was "one reason why you find scepticism towards inspectors".

The life-long civil servant -who is looking forward to returning to a shared life with his wife in Stockholm as he turns 75 - said he was convinced that "there are people in this administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things".

Instead of seeing the UN as a collective body of decision-making states, Washington now viewed it as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it. Such [negative] feelings don't exist in Europe where people say that the UN is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff."

That was especially worrying given President Bush's openly proclaimed belief in the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "It would be more desirable and more reasonable to ask for security council authority, especially at a time when communism no longer exists and you don't have automatic vetoes from Russia and China," he said.

Similarly it would be much more "credible" if a team of international inspectors were sent into Iraq instead of the 1,300-strong US-appointed group now conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said.