The Clintons' Iraq Fairy Tale

It's fascinating to see Hillary Clinton attack Barack Obama for things that she herself voted for, like funding for the war in Iraq.

Following her Meet the Press appearance on Sunday, in which she sharply questioned Obama's antiwar credentials, Clinton's National Security Director Lee Feinstein said that "Since 2004, Senator Obama explicitly called for keeping troops in Iraq and opposed a timeline for withdrawal, only changing his position when he became a candidate for the White House." Actually that's what Clinton did, waiting until February 17, 2007--after Obama--to release her own exit strategy. In the years after her vote for the Senate's Iraq resolution, Clinton clung to her support of the war. On a February 23, 2005, Meet the Press appearance, with Senator John McCain, she criticized the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, saying: "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time." Her conclusions were hardly different than Senator McCain's.

That's why Clinton's latest attack against Obama should be seen as part of a consistent attempt by the Clintons to rewrite their history on Iraq, from Bill claiming that he had always opposed the war to Richard Holbrooke alleging that Clinton had voted "to empower the President to avoid war."

Since the war debate began, Clinton and her advisers have lagged behind prominent members of the party in opposing the war and then calling for a strategy to get out. As an example, take the pivotal moment after Congressman Jack Murtha issued his dramatic break with the war.

Shortly after Murtha's announcement, Mark Penn, now Clinton's top strategist, and Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council warned that Democrats calling for withdrawal "could be playing with political dynamite" and needed to be "extremely careful." They continued: "It is important for Democrats to understand that despite Bush's decline, America remains a moderate to conservative country--particularly on economic and security measures."

In the winter of '05 and spring of '06, Clinton's position on the war remained vague at best. Here's what I reported in a Nation feature back then:

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end," Senator Hillary Clinton, the most recognizable Democrat, wrote in a letter to her constituents in late November. "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately." If the Iraqi elections were successful, Clinton said, troops could begin coming home this year, though she didn't specify when or how. When asked if the outcome of the December elections met Clinton's criteria, her spokesperson Philippe Reines answered, "The jury's still out." Clinton continues to speak about Iraq only when she has to, in the most measured tones.

"The tone, unfortunately for the Democratic majority, has been set by the two Clintons," says [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, a longstanding hawk and vocal critic of the Iraq War, "who have decided that Senator Clinton's chances would be improved if she can manage to appear as a kind of quasi-Margaret Thatcher, and therefore she's been loath to come out with a decisive, strong, unambiguous criticism of the war, with some straightforward recommendations as to what ought to be done. And I'm afraid that has contaminated the attitude of the other Democratic political leaders."

In contrast, after Murtha's statement Obama called for a drawdown in troops in '06, as David Sirota reported in this magazine. "Those of us in Washington have fallen behind the debate that is taking place across America on Iraq," Obama said. The article goes on to note that during his tenure in the Senate Obama wasn't a great antiwar champion. Too often he stayed silent when the antiwar movement needed him to speak up. But he did consistently oppose the war, which is more than one can say about Clinton.

The two candidates largely agree on what to do about Iraq today, opposing the surge and calling for a phased redeployment of troops, although Clinton has been less forthcoming about how many forces will be left behind. The biggest issue now is the way forward--i.e. how to get out--but what someone will do in the future is informed by what they did in the past.

When it came to Iraq, Obama wasn't Russ Feingold. But he wasn't Hillary Clinton, either.

Comments (21)

1. "In the years after her vote for the Senate's Iraq resolution, Clinton clung to her support of the war. On a February 23, 2005, Meet the Press appearance, with Senator John McCain, she criticized the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, saying: "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time."

   Now, I"m sure FRANKGRITS will have a logical explanation for that....like.....oh.....uhmmm......that was Hillary's evil twin sister, Hildegarde Rodham!

   (hey, do it all the time on the soap operas!.....heheh)

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 4:16pm

2. When it came to Iraq, Obama wasn't Russ Feingold. But he wasn't Hillary Clinton, either.

   I think Hillary's past actions AND her current actions in taking money from defense contractors and putting more earmarks on their behalf than any Democrat in history (yes, more than Scoop Jackson!), tells you where Hillary really stands on the war in Iraq and the prospect for more war on her watch.

   You are correct, Obama is no Tom Hayden, but we do have to think about how we exit so as not to create conditions that lead us to having go back in.

   "Rapid withdrawal" is what every progressive wants, but "withdrawing as fast as possible under the circumstances" seems to be the more prudent course, and this is what Obama has said he will do.

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2008 @ 4:22pm

3. This is just one example of the many lies and misrepresentations (and blatant hypocrisy and revisionism) that have come out of the Clinton campaign in their quest to destroy Obama and secure their forward march (at all costs) toward regaining executive power. Unfortunately only smaller progressive media are picking up on these lies and exposing them. The MSM (yes, that "horrible rabid anti-Clinton" MSM) has all but given the Clintons a free pass on lying, both about her opponents and about her own record (what "experience"?), for pretty much the entire campaign.

   I can only imagine the howling that would occur if the media actually had some kind of journalistic fact-finding/reporting character. I know if I were running for president I would gladly trade a serious examination of my claims and attacks for some stupid and meaningless discussions of my tears. I think Rupert Murdoch would be hard pressed to get more of a free pass from the media.

   Posted by bridoc at 01/14/2008 @ 4:28pm

4. Hey Rio, just so you know, other studies (with no relation to Soros) have resulted in similar findings of the study you cite.

   Posted by bridoc at 01/14/2008 @ 4:30pm

5. There is a whole lot more going on in the world of politics than this upcoming election. The Nation has focused too much on that and let other issues slip by unreported. Like the continued verbal assault on Iran by GW and now, I just read, he has secured an ARMS sale to SAUDI ARABIA! WTF?!? These people are NOT our allies.

   Yet, what do we get here? More BS reporting over word-sparring between the candidates. Folks, there is a whole lot more going on out there then the primary election. Cover the issues. I don't need to read posts from four different authors on the same subject. (And I know, I could just change the channel, which I will if the coverage doesn't improve).

   Posted by FritztheCat at 01/14/2008 @ 4:40pm

6. Nawww, FRANK....think I'd go with the "evil twin sister" theory instead!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 4:49pm

7. BTW, don't anybody tell you there aren't TWO "slick" ones in that family...notice this?-

   RUSSRT: "Looking back on your vote in October of 2002, what can you learn from that mistake, the way you'll make decisions in the future?"

   SEN. CLINTON: "Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote."

   ------------------------------

   Russert asks her about HER mistake in voting for the war, and first sentence?...She turns it into what BUSH did, not her vote.

   She's quick on her feet, nobody can doubt that! Learned from the best in her bedroom!

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 4:58pm

8. The essence of Billary's Iraq attack on Obama seems to be ... Obama is just as much of a war-monger as I am, he's as keen to bomb & invade as I am. A very odd stance indeed, albeit one that the MSM swallows intact.

   Posted by Lit at 01/14/2008 @ 5:00pm

9. I'm putting forth my qualifications, my experience, my 35 years of proven, tested leadership

   FRANKGRITS,

   First, she counts Bill's 8 years as president as her own, so is she now counting Bill's 8 years experience as governor of Arkansas too?

   I thought she was a partner at The Rose law firm during that time representing all of those white-shoe multinational corporations that are the typical clients of that firm, right?

   How can you count that as "public policy experience", or is there something Hillary is not telling us concerning what she did for those corporations?

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2008 @ 5:03pm

10. Posted by METTEYYA 01/14/2008 @ 5:03pm

    I think from here on out, people in job interviews should list on their resumes and discuss their spouses past jobs as if they were their own. I'm sure prospective employers would quickly rule out a candidate trying to use their spouse's credentials to secure a job. Why does Hillary get an exemption for this?

    Posted by BlueTexan at 01/14/2008 @ 5:19pm

11. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/14/2008 @ 4:40pm

    amen!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 5:36pm

12. Learned from the best in her bedroom!

    Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 4:58pm

    carl rove?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 5:58pm

13. carl rove?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/14/2008 @ 5:58pm

    Silly! Monica Lewenski....when Hillary was out visiting 90 foreign countries as POTUS-in-waiting!

    Posted by Happy at 01/14/2008 @ 6:04pm

14. Read 'A Living History'. You'll learn all about her qualifications.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/14/2008 @ 6:09pm

    Yes, because if you want an un-biased and objective view of how great Hillary is....

    read her autobiography!

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 7:08pm

15. read her autobiography!

    Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 7:08pm

    Naturally, this is, after, the "Fairy Tale" thread....LOL

    Posted by Happy at 01/14/2008 @ 7:11pm

16. "OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

    For those of you who still have not heard:

    There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

    It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

    YES WE CAN

    Anne

    Posted by annevilla at 01/14/2008 @ 7:24pm

17. Posted by HAPPY 01/14/2008 @ 7:11pm

    Just curious, FRANK keeps saying that and seems to never realize the SILLY ASPECT of saying "If you want to the learn 'the Truth' about Hillary...read the book SHE wrote about HERSELF!"

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 7:25pm

18. (More on the Fairy Tale Party....)

    NYT Op-Ed Columnist

    The Democrats' Fairy Tale

    By WILLIAM KRISTOL

    Published: January 14, 2008

    "Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama's claim that he -- unlike Hillary Clinton -- had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war.

    Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

    When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn't believe additional U.S. troops would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that "this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a "willing suspension of disbelief."

    The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge....

    Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?

    No. It's apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge -- let alone celebrate -- progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her "willing suspension of disbelief" insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, "That's right."

    ....That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!

    Posted by Happy at 01/14/2008 @ 9:17pm

19. I don't see the surge as being successful in its intended purpose. The purpose was not to quell the violence alone. It was intended to create stability so the Iraqi government could take steps to meeting the benchmarks proposed and instilling a sustainable government. Any reduction in the amount of deaths of our men and women bravely serving over there is certainly something to rejoice in. However, the Iraqi government is not upholding their part. So I would say the surge has half-worked. But the cost (and I'm not talking about dollars) of this war has been too much.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/14/2008 @ 9:26pm

20. I don't see the surge as being successful in its intended purpose.

    Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/14/2008 @ 9:26pm

    sure it is. clamp down the death toll until a new republican is elected president.

    that's the purpose of the surge.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 10:26pm

21. The Clintons are conducting a dirty and disgusting campaign (which doesn't surprise me). One example, just before the N.H. primary, several Jewish friends of mine received the rediculous and offensive "Obama is a Muslim" email. And the unmitigated nerve of Hillary, to claim that Obama supported the was in Iraq, and not she. Does the Cliton campaign think we are all uneducated morons? It's no wonder that Hillary has attracted the uneducated voters to her camp. They apparantly believe her lies.

    One more thing... Dennis Kucinich has requested a recount of the New Hampshire primary votes. The hand-counted votes favored Obama, just as the polls had predicted. But the machine counted votes favored Hillary, enough so that she "won" the election.

    HOWEVER, the voting machines used in New Hampshire have been tampered with in the past, and are capable of being tampered with. Kucinich cited as the reason for his request for a recount the fact that he has "credible information" of a very serious nature to the effect that the results of the primary may have been compromised.

    I truly believe Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives would stop at nothing to gain the power of the White House.

    Posted by WinnieM at 01/15/2008 @ 01:50am