How Clinton originally proceeded on this issue was to say that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted as she did. This is a viable answer politically if you believe that the White House could fully mislead Senators as easily as it seemingly did the American public. My feeling is that every Member of Congress who voted to enable the war is at fault for it. They, including Clinton, could have done a better job to find out exactly what was up and if any questions remained, they should have voted against authorization. They did what was politically expedient, nothing more.
What makes that original defense of her conduct even more suspect is Clinton's new line on the issue. Yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, Clinton indicated that she hadn't really voted to authorize the war. What she'd done was to further the cause to force Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections resolutions.
In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.
Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”
On its face, this seems to support her earlier statement that she was mislead and that currently-known facts would cause her to vote differently today. However, the comments about Hagel give me pause.
It was Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who crafted the original draft the bill to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Hagel's original bill, unlike the bill that finally passed, authorized force only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This was a much more limited and narrow authorization than the one that ultimately passed, a bill that gave the United States the "authority" to uphold all UN resolutions in the matter of Iraq. This broader bill that ultimately passed, with Clinton's vote, was actually crafted by the White House, not Hagel.
Clinton would have obviously known that the language originally sought by Hagel was nothing like that which ultimately found its way into the authorizing legislation. It seems to me that she's trying to twist the facts of history and I'm not sure why. Her old line was working politically. Now, she has something on which to be called out. Indeed, when called upon to answer for Clinton's seeming implication that it was Hagel who had crafted the ultimate legislation, her campaign had this to say.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said Sunday that the statements by the senator and Mr. Clinton accurately reflected the role that Mr. Hagel played in the overall negotiations, even if it was not his bill that Congress voted on.
“Senator Hagel not only played a key role in drafting the 2002 authorization,” Mr. Singer said, “but has spoken about those efforts at length.”
The "funny" part about this debate is its semantics. Even if it had been the narrower version put forward by Hagel that had ultimately been used by Bush to invade Iraq, anyone voting for it would be just as culpable as they now are under the historical record as it played out. Bush would most certainly have done exactly what he did regardless of the language. Be this as it may, it does not excuse Clinton's current actions.
14 January 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment