The dimensions of Bill Clinton's mistake on Iraq

He misunderestimated Bush, along with Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, an the whole Washington establishment.

Disclaimer: Some may mis-read this post as a blanket defense of Clinton. It is not. There is no doubt that both Clintons and a lot of other Democrats fucked up beyond imagination. This post is an examination of the nature of the fuck-up... an examination of the line between gross error and intentional evil. The Democratic establishment's errors were errors of arrogance combined with a lack of the requisite level of cynicism. Very few Democrats, however, actually favored wholesale murder for the sheer fun of it, and many Republicans did. That is worth little to the victims of the war, but it's worth noting.

And I am not defending Bill's statement that he opposed the war from the beginning. That is a stupid and false statement, and one he is not likely to ever make again.

I was as strong an opponent of the Iraq War as a person could be without immolating himself outside Rumsfeld's window. I wrote obsessively and at length about why there were probably no WMD, on the illegality of the war, on the immorality of the war, on the fact the war would only strengthen Iranian influence and about the inevitability of an insurgency. In consider the Iraq War roughly equivalent to Hitler's invasion of Poland. I don't recall any "responsible" person getting it as right as so many of us cranks on the internet got it, so I'm not overly impressed with the vision of mainstream types who "opposed" the war. Half the country opposed the war until the last minute. I loved Gore's Iraq speech more than anything I've ever heard, though I was somewhat disappointed that even Gore accepted the existence of the WMD, if not their threat potential. And, just like most folks on the left, I had no trouble recognizing that Bush was a sociopath.

______________


There is no doubt that all who voted for the IWR were wrong because, and really only because, it was should have been obvious that Bush was a sociopath. Unfortunately, experienced politicos were slow to recognize the fact, probably because Bush's father had been sort of reasonable by modern Republican standards. Many people assumed that G. W. Bush was a figure-head and that the old guard would be calling the shots. Many did not realize that Dick Cheney had gone insane between 1991-2002 and was no longer the guy who had once spoken on the impossibility of successfully invading Iraq.

The more powerful a Democrat was, the liklier he was to fail to recognize that Bush was crazy. To those of us with no power, it was obvious that Bush couldn't be finessed or coralled. To some high-ranking Dems, though, they thought he could be somehow manipulated, boxed in, influenced. They were slow to recognize the depths of post 9/11 parsisanship... that their previous power no longer existed.

As Biden says, "I thought I could change his behavior. I was wrong."

The central error of the Iraq debacle was failing to recognize that Bush would invade Iraq after it was demonstrated there were no WMD. All other errors lead back to that one key point. Obviously (to them), no American president could do something that crazy. And they thought the institutional brakes of the ponderous machine that is government were still working... they had always worked before. Many Democrats were fatally slow to recognize that 9/11 had cut our national brake lines. It was not as obvious to them as it should have been in autumn 2002, and by spring 2003, when they started to figure it out, they had already voted for the thing.

Some Democrats assumed the entire Iraq War thing couldn't be serious... too crazy on its face. They assumed that the entire undertaking was a political attack on the Democratic party and that Bush would pull back after the elections. So they, in their minds, didn't take what they thought was just political bait. They thought the run up to war was a trap designed to get them to oppose a war that wasn't going to happen anyway. (That was probably Gephardt's reasoning) Again, this was a clear error in understanding G. W. Bush, but not an error on understanding domestic politics or geo-political dynamics if Bush were sane.

Other Democrats (including Biden and the Clintons, I think) looked at the situation both politically and in the geo-political abstract. "If I were President, what would I do?" And to them, it was plain that everything Bush did added up to an excellent strategy assuming we didn't actually invade Iraq. There's that fatal assumption again. Clinton or Biden would have asked congress for the exact same IWR as a tool, knowing they had no intention af actually occupying Iraq. (The very moderate protections of Biden-Lugar should have passed... I really fault those who voted against such an innocuous, common-sense proposal.)

(And somewhere in here I should note the fact that the Senate Dems who got it right were all people who had no presidential ambitions.)

If Bush's intention was to get inspectors back in Iraq, weaken Saddam's hold on his country and bloody the Democrats, he accomplished all of that without firing a shot. A real coup. Assuming he didn't then undo it all by invading Iraq. If I were in congress and Bill Clinton were President I would have voted for the IWR, even though I didn't believe in the WMD menace, confident that it was a tool of diplomatic pressure to force inspectors back into the country, which was the only way to vanquish the WMD bogey-man for good. (And because the re-imposition of UN control would have hastened Saddam's loss of power... having effectively lost all sovereign control of his own country he would have probably been ousted in a year or two by someone who might have been more reasonable.) If Bill Clinton had then actually invaded Iraq after it was demonstrated that there was no WMD threat I would have then realized he was nuts, and voted to impeach him.

Some Democrats undoubtedly thought they had played it perfectly... once the inspectors were back in Iraq Bush's bluff was called. He couldn't possibly invade after the inspectors demonstrated there were no WMD. Unless he was a sociopath, which he was.

I don't think any of the Democrats who voted for the IWR (except Lieberman) were voting for the neo-con proposition that the US should invade an Arab country that posed no threat, merely to show dominance and extend influence. Their votes were wrong, but not neo-con.

Bill Clinton declared war on Iraq in 1998 (in terms of international law, bombing a nation is a declaration of war whether Congress is consulted or not) because he believed in the WMD threat. Having had the highest possible security clearance for many years, he thought he had good reason to believe in the WMD threat. And in September 2002 he continued to believe in the WMD threat. Having himself used force to counter the WMD threat, there was no reason to think he would oppose more selective bombings of "WMD facilities."

Bill Clinton was a WMD true-believer, but I cannot see that he favored invading Iraq. In early 2003 he saw himself as a broker working to avoid he invasion. One can say that was stupid, but it doesn't make him a supporter of the invasion. Bill Clinton was fixated on the problem of getting Iraq to disarm, and convinced there were arms to disarm, and slow to recognize that Bush was a greater danger than Iraq. And, because Clinton believed in the WMD (based on the US intel consensus that existed during his presidency), he thought it was possible to get Iraq to disarm. He did not understand that Iraq couldn't possibly prevent war because they had no arms to give up.

But Clinton did come to recognize, some time between the IWR and the invasion, that the Bush administration intended to invade whether there were WMD or not. He was wrong not to recognize that earlier, but he did figure it out a few months too late and he saw himself as a force for good trying to influence international machinations to prevent the invasion. Clinton seems to have believed that he could help Blair prevent the invasion. (Again, without knowing that Saddam couldn't comply because there was nothing to disclose):

In the face of the foot dragging, hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq. Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and, therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed. Because military action probably will require only a few days, they believe the world community will quickly unite on rebuilding Iraq as soon as Saddam is deposed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

This is not a defense of the Clinton's wisdom, merely noting that their ONLY mistake was misunderestimating Bush's sociopathy. That is an immense mistake. It is not, however, support of the invasion as it came to pass in 2003. Hillary is truthful when she says her IWR vote was a vote for diplomacy. That is what was in her mind. And Bill Clinton's mind. And Joe Biden and John Edwards and Chris Dodd's mind. And John Kerry's mind... as he said, "I didn't expect Bush to fuck it up so badly."

So talk abut who supported the Iraq War should be narrowed to its pertinent dimensions. The Senate Democrats who voted for the IWR were bamboozled. They were dumb. They misread the situation and misread the players. But they did not support the idea of invading Iraq even after it was demonstrated that Iraq posed no threat to the US.

The fairest criticism of Bill and Hillary (and all the others) is that they grossly overestimated their own ability to play the system. They thought they could call Bush's bluff, because they thought Bush was a reckless poker player, rather than a serial killer. An immense and tragic error. But I see no reason to think that Kerry or Clinton or all the others actually favored removing the inspectors again and invading and occupying Iraq in 2003. (No more than Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler would invade Poland.) They were not pro-war for the sake of war. They didn't favor killing a bunch of people for the sheer hell of it.

The difference between first-degree murder and negligent homicide doesn't matter much to the victims, but it makes a difference in how we view the perpetrators.

is not equivalent to voted for the IWR, hence Bills recent statement was 100% accurate. Unless he pounded the war drums for an invasion regardless of the UN inspection findings or advocated Bush to kick out the inspectors and invade, he was not "supporting the war".

Any Democrats that confuse "supported the war" with voted for the IWR, are doing a disservice to our party.

It is time to admit that those who supported it were in error, and then maybe our party can heal.

Pretending is not going to work anymore.

to trust Bush to follow the parameters of the IWR.

Most of them learned that hard lesson and weren't willing to believe him again regarding Iran.

The Clintons could have had wonderful influence in stopping this invasion of a country that never harmed us.

They did not. Bill Clinton did not speak up, and his advisors were telling others to vote yes.

please let me know.

All three of these men can't be wrong. Maybe we should think about it.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

I do not believe they really understood what Bush would do with the power they gave him. He had been in office over a year....and they all most surely should have known.

They gave the power of war to an incompetent man who said things would be easier if he were the dictator. They all should have known better.

There is no way out, and it is devastating our economy and undermining our nation's core of morality.

the resolution there were requirements and conditions to be met in order to actually engage in a military action. Bush just blew those off and went ahead, essentially saying fuck you to the Congress and Senate. That's why so many were unwilling to fall for those "safeguards" again with the Kyl-Lieberman thing.

And yes, I understand Dennis's 'nay' vote and Obama's opinion, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that supporting the IWR wasn't technically a vote to go to war, although Bush used it as such.

I have no doubt those who DID support it are sickened by the outcome.

The ONLY Democrat running who said (on a fall 2003 HardBall) that the invasion itself was right was JOHN EDWARDS, who is running on the platform that he is most anti- war.

I don't think that even HRC spoke in favor of the invasion itself.

to support Bush on IWR. He also advised Tony Blair.

Clinton also CHOSE To CONTINUE TO SUPPORT Bush's DECISION to go to war and did so throughout his 2004 book tour at the same time Kerry had been criticizing and opposing Bush on his DECISION to invade and his military strategy that kept troops and permanent bases in Iraq instead of turning the mission over to UN as Kerry would have done to start bringing our troops home within 6months of the Iraqi election.

Clinton COULD HAVE backed up Kerry's position opposing Bush's decisions in Iraq and on terrorism, but he would not. Bush ended up getting all the headlines for Clinton's support at a time when our Dem nominee was trying to break through the media wall with his own positions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

On the one hand you pummel Clinton for the IWR and on the other you give Kerry a big fat kiss for the same thing.

inspections were working to prove force was not necessary.

THAT was the time for anyone who HAD voted for IWR to get weapon inspections to condemn Bush for making a decision in direct contrast to what the weapon inspections were proving - that force was not needed.

Clinton didn't exactly speak publicly to back up Kerry's criticisms of Bush's decisions - he was too busy in 2003 and 2004 supporting Bush 'against the left' wasn't he?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Jeezus H Christ on a POGO STICK! :mad:

weapon inspectors had been given more time.

What part of he supports Bush's decision to go into Iraq don't you get?

That's a big difference from Kerry speaking before, during and after that he was NOT SUPPORTING Bush's DECISION to invade BECAUSE weapon inspections were proving war was not needed.

You'll hang your hat on anything to avoid the truth about Clinton - he helped push that war in the Dem caucus, in the media and with world leaders who trusted him like Tony Blair.


From the article:
>>>>>
"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

>>>>>>>

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.
>>>>>>>

How the hell can you misinterpret that?

Kerry did NOT support Bush's DECISION to go to war and had no problem saying so before, during and after.

that "(And somewhere in here I should note the fact that the Senate Dems who got it right were all people who had no presidential ambitions.) doesn't point out that Obama, who wasn't IN the Senate at the time, spoke out against it even though he was about to run for the Senate AND he may already have had plans to run for president in '08. Either way, Obama is the only presidential candidate who spoke out about exactly what he thought would happen if we invaded and called it a "dumb war."

There is no criticism of Obama in the OP, and the OP is highly critical of both Clintons, as well as several other Senators, in every paragraph. So I think Obama comes off just fine by implication. But Obama is kind of a side issue to the OP, which is about the different reasons people in Washington in 20002 voted for the IWR.

I agree that Hillary should have voted for Levin/Reid.

I saw that one paragraph and had to comment on how Obama was different. :)

made any difference. It wouldn't even have changed the signing statement. Are you seriously saying that Obama thought of himself as a Presidential 08 candidate in 2002.

I assume that if you look through all of Senator Biden's speeches, you will find many where he lays out the same concerns with invading Iraq. He also tried to create a Democratic alternative that Howard Dean said he would have supported had he been in the Senate. I think the OP makes some good points - it is very likely that many of the senators thought they could push Bush into delaying and working with the international community and create a situation where war was avoided.

Remember there were already troops amassed in the Persian Gulf, Bush was saying the Nov 2002 resolution on terrorism and the war powers act itself was all he needed. The IWR did not make the war more likely - and it was a trap either way for Democrats.

The point is Hillary was not for additional diplomacy as the amendment called for. How Bush misused the authority should teach people not to give him an inch because he'll take a yard. I'm talking now about the Kyl-Lieberman bill. People should've learned from the IWR.

before her vote on the IWR, but disagreed with some language in the Levin amendment. The only thing I can thing of is that it could be spun as having given the UN some of other decision making power. (I know that that claim would be false, but I can see that it is complex enough that it would be.)

I am more unhappy with her vote on the Durbin amendment that made it clear that WMD and only WMD was a reason.

Didn't about half of the Congressional Dems. vote AGAINST the IWR and didn't about 80% of US think Bush was going to invade no matter what? I really think she voted for it to look strong in this election.

......after it is established that there is a tragic, if not fatal flaw in a form of government that lets loose the dogs of war based on fabricated evidence, that is passed from one branch of that government to the other.

Excellent OP.

I admire the thoughtfulness of your post.

However there is a more crucial point that gets to the heart of the matter in the context of now. There was NO EXCUSE for giving Bush a blank check. Any those who did have to apologize for being so wrong.

The problem is the arrogence and wrongheaded stupidity of those who assumed they "knew better" than all of the opponents of the war -- or who assumed that they were so powerful and competent that they could stop a bulldozer with a toothpick.

How that pertains to NOW. Do we really want to turn over power to the same people who were so blind and gullible and arrogent? The Beltway Elites were condescending then. Are the people in that crowd really capable (or willing) of tackling the war AND OTHER ISSUES with their belief in inside gamesmanship.

It was obvious from the start -- and became increasingly obvious all along -- that it was a trumped-up crisis of opportunity for Bushco. It was equally obvious that Bush had absolutely no intention of simply forcing Sadaam to allow inspections and destruction of any WMDs.

Every time Sadaam said "okay" Bush raised the bar.

Do we want to perpetuate that kind of myopia? Take economic issues, for example. Are they going to really stand up when the health insurance lobby says "Trust us. We'll do the right thing if you don't force anything on us."

bullcrap about who supported the war..the problem right now is who is going to end it and bring the troops home.....THAT --- THAT---- IS THE PROBLEM.