The neocon/PNAC dream of ousting Saddam Hussein (along with regimes in Iran and Syria) was no secret in Washington when Bush/Cheney and their merry band of neocons took office in January 2001.
The neocons and their later official incarnation as the Project for a New American Century had been loudly proclaiming their dream for more than a decade before Cheney grabbed hold of the reins of power. Everyone in Washington knew that this crew wanted to get into Iraq in the worst way, even before Bush was inaugurated.
Of course, Cheney and company cynically exploited 9-11 to do what they were going to do sometime during Bush's first term anyway -- invade Iraq.
And this poses a particular dilemma for Hillary Clinton, and, to an extent, for John Edwards. (I'm ignoring Biden.) But perhaps Clinton worst of all. And this past weekend, Hillary stepped in it even deeper with comments she made under heavy questioning from audience members in New Hampshire.
(more)
While campaigning in New Hampshire on Saturday, Clinton suggested that everyone knew before Bush even took office that he was "obsessed" with overthrowing Saddam:
Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote poses political peril for her candidacy; she has not repudiated her vote, as Mr. Edwards has done of his, and she lacks the record of consistent criticism against the war of Mr. Obama, who was not in the Senate in 2002. During one forum early Saturday in the economically struggling city of Berlin in northern New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton used tough language to blame President Bush and his advisers for Iraq, asserting that they came into power in 2001 with an "obsession" to oust Saddam Hussein and resolve the "unfinished business" of the first Persian Gulf war.
"From almost the first day they got into office," Mrs. Clinton said, "they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I’m not a psychiatrist; I don’t know all of the reasons behind their concern, some might say their obsession."
Exactly, Senator Clinton.
"From almost the first day they got into office, they were trying to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein."
And everyone in Washington knew it, because the PNACers -- a group that included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, among others -- had been loudly proclaiming just such an effort for years.
So this begs the question (and it's the same question that dogged the Kerry campaign and, in my mind, undercut his every pronouncement on Iraq):
Knowing that they were obsessed with Saddam and Iraq, why would you, Hillary, give them anything close to permission to do so?
The answers are ugly, indeed. Voting yes on IWR (and, yes, many will argue that IWR required Bush to use diplomacy first, a nuance lost on the voting public) was a political calculation. It was for Kerry (who voted against the resolution authorizing Gulf War I) and it was for Clinton, as well, as she so much as admits in her statements from this weekend.
Of course, Hillary, more so than Edwards, compounds her mistake by refusing to admit that her vote was an error in judgment. The phony, "I was misled," didn't work for Kerry and it likely won't work for Clinton, either.
If I were managing Obama's campaign, every time Hillary opened her mouth about my candidate's position on Iraq or on my candidate's lack of experience, I would simply pull up these quotes and say:
"It is ironic that Senator Clinton calls into question the experience and judgment of Senator Obama when, by her own admission, she voted to give permission to the Bush administration to start a disastrous war that she, herself, admits they were obsessed with starting long before 9-11. That's a serious error in judgment, and if that's what more experience gets us, than I think we need a change."
Clinton will soon be forced to admit that she made a mistake on Iraq. Because the public is no longer buying "I was misled" or "The war was poorly managed."