Clinton still pushing back on ’02 Iraq vote

Every Dem has to reach their own conclusion about how seriously to take senators’ 2002 votes authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. I try not to use the vote as a litmus test — John Kerry and John Edwards both went the wrong way on that vote, arguably for the wrong reasons, and I nevertheless supported their ticket enthusiastically four years ago.

Similarly, of course, Hillary Clinton also voted the wrong way nearly six years ago. Some voters are willing to overlook the mistake, some aren’t. Yesterday in Eugene, Ore., the senator heard from some in the latter group, fielding questions that CBS News described as “testier” than any she’d received “in quite a while.”

“I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.”

Clinton said that historians will judge if her decision was the right one, but she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.

“When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.”

So far, so good. Over the last four years, Clinton’s and Obama’s votes on Iraq have been nearly identical. She made a “considered judgment” six years ago, which turned out to be wrong, but when it comes to voting records, Clinton has a reasonable case to make — both she and Obama have been largely on the same page since ’04.

But then, at the Oregon event yesterday, Clinton pushed the point a little too far.

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

The notion that Obama has premised “his entire campaign” on a 2002 speech strikes me as pretty unfair, but it’s that first line that might raise a few eyebrows: “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”

My hunch is that Clinton wishes she could take that one back, because she almost certainly didn’t mean it. Indeed, it contradicted her own remarks at the event — Obama warned in ’02 that the war would be a mistake, while Clinton was making a “considered judgment” that gave the White House the green light for war. She wasn’t criticizing the war before Obama, she was helping clear the way for war while Obama was urging the nation to follow a smarter course.

I’m not inclined to hold Clinton’s ’02 vote against her. I’m also inclined to shrug my shoulders about Clinton’s reluctance to acknowledge that her vote was a mistake. But it’s discouraging that she was willing, at least yesterday, to start bragging about criticism she didn’t make.

“… he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote….”

Missed it by that much, as Maxwell Smart used to say, pinching thumb and index finger, while someone from Kaos plummeted to his death.

  • Maybe she made the criticism while under sniper fire?

    Sigh. What next from her? Whining that she didn’t get enough credit for helping write the Declaration of Independence, perhaps? Or that it was she, not Luke Skywalker, who destroyed the Death Star?

    Um, I know that Hils was rather silent on the matter in 2002 like most of the Dems. Not very many pols stood up said that the Iraq “war” was a stupid idea or I might have remembered her talking about it.

    The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is STOP DIGGING.

  • For me the Iraq vote is no longer that important since she at least is on the right page now. Yes, she made a horrible mistake in judgment, but we have plenty of staffing, strategy and messaging decisions as more current examples of her horrible judgment so there is no need to go back that far to realize she would be a mediocre President.

  • I don’t think Clinton criticized the Iraq War until late 2005 when the polls showed that a majority of Americans opposed it.

  • “I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech

    Wrong! http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

    I think Dems can accurately make the argument that Bush would not have sought a coalition, more inspections, a UN resolution, or even congressional participation in the decision to go to war. In fact, her speech makes those arguments. But this was a considered “political” judgment, and a wrong one at that. She decided to err on the side of war. And there was plenty of reason not to.

    Once the invasion took place, the only choices were to fund or not fund the war. That is not a good solution. I only wish Obama would push for double impeachment.

  • shillary is LYING again – but that is what we expect. There is a HUGE difference between voting for the war in the first place and then going along with the funding and requests that are needed to keep the troops supplied.

    Obama, and no one else, has been given the opportunity to vote to END this war – that is not his fault – that is democratic leadership. Voting to maintain and support troops in a dangerous situation is one thing – voting to authorize a war based on lies is another.

    We do not need a bush-clinton-bush-clinton dynasty in DC – it is time for change.

  • It seems clear to me that she just blurts out stuff off the top of her head that she thinks is what the audience wants to hear and/or that she thinks diminishes Obama’s strongest argument. Is that what we want in a president? Isn’t that kinda what we have now?

  • Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.” (from CBS News)

    I repeat what I’ve said before: it doesn’t worry me too much that Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. I understand that as the wife of a former president, she wouldn’t want to limit the options of a sitting president. However, her speech in the Senate to justify her vote was ‘way over the top and sounded like her real agenda was to establish her own credentials as being tough on national defense. Her speech merely regurgitated the Bush administration’s most inflammatory rhetoric about Sadaam being a dangerous part of the “axis of evil”.

    But there are two things I can’t forgive, and which make it all but impossible for me ever to vote for her.

    First, contrary to what Clinton says now she didn’t criticize the arrogant, ignorant, incompetent and corrupt policies the Bush administration used to conduct the Iraq occupation when it might have done some good. Instead, she was silent until polls showed that public disapproval had reached 65 percent. By then, Iraq was so fouled up that it will take decades before it is a functioning country.

    Secondly, after Bush had demonstrated that he couldn’t be trusted with the authority to make war she voted for Kyle-Lieberman, a bill that would give Bush and company an excuse to attack Iran.

    Clinton has been tested and her judgement has been found to be lacking. It’s time for her to retire and enjoy her millions.

  • I was wondering where the trolls were hiding. Note they never have anything to defend Hillary with? And this one doesn’t have any more regard for the truth than Hillary does.

  • “I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.”

    Good god. Does she thing no one knows she couldn’t be bothered to read the NIE?

  • Clinton said that historians will judge if her decision was the right one, but she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.

    “When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.” (from CBS News)

    I wish the Democrats had the courage to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. But the sad fact is, 45 secongs after the vote to cut off funding, Republicans would have been shrieking:

    “American soldiers are showing signs of malnutrition after Democrats cut off funds and left them to starve!”

    “Wounded American solders are dying because Democrats’ bill that cuts off funds for the troops requires doctors to pull out I.V.s unless the soldiers can produce the cash to pay for medicine themselves!”

    “American soldiers are begging on the streets of Baghdad to get the money to pay for their tickets home because Democrats have cut off all funds to our troops!”

    And of course, when the Republicans spewed this bile the press-titutes would have accepted it without question and turned to the token Democrat and said, “Okay, fair enough! Mr. Democrat, don’t you feel guilty about allowing our brave soldiers to go hungry? Why did you cut off medical care for our soldiers? How can you leave them stranded in foreign country?”

    There was no way the Democrats could have won that debate.

  • Hillary was against a war—by voting for it. How much more Orwellian does she have to be, before the American People—in their fully-justifiable, righteous wrath—kick the quasi-neo-bizarroland-hemorrhoid-esque-GOPer Clintonians to the curb?

  • I’m not inclined to hold Clinton’s ‘02 vote against her.

    Well, I am.

    I supported the invasion at the time. People who exhibited better judgment, and refused to go along with the Serious crowd in DC, deserve a great deal of credit.

    Her vote’s not a disqualifier, but it fits into a larger pattern of triangulation.

    (To be fair, Obama has engaged in the same a tiny bit on Social Security, and to a greater extent on universal health care).

  • Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company.

    You mean teh same Excelon that Mark Penn works for? That Excelon?

  • I made a considered judgment,

    Really. What considerations did you include?

    The National Intelligence Estimate? Nope.

    Your considered judgment was entirely political.

    You couldn’t vote “NO” even though you knew it was the right thing to do because when you ran for president people would say you were weak on terror. You figured that the democratic base would forgive you because the war would have been over for 5 years already when you ran for president.

  • I think the word “intelligent” needs to be dropped from any description of Hillary Clinton. The record is she is dumb as dirt, that she thinks she can say things like this, or about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, or Clesea narrowly missing 9/11, or her input to foreign affairs, etc., etc. Her record is that she has lied for so long to so many so often, she has no idea what the truth is – she will say anything, do anything, if she thinks it will get her where she wants to be. This is not the kind of decision-maker one wants in the most powerful office on earth.

    Fortunately, as the polls show, people are starting to get this about her.

  • Hillary Clinton’s refusal to admit that her vote for the war was a mistake is a general election tactic.

    Her campaign believes that Hillary can win more republican votes by appearing to support a war that many see as beginning to show positive results in Iraq, such as decreased violence and less civilian deaths in the past 4 months.

    Hillary’s perceived weakness (supporting her vote for the war) will instantly become a strength if she becomes the democratic nominee. Her current strategy is to down-play her support of the war to minimize damage to her campaign during the anti-war democratic contest.

    In an effort to win at any cost, Hillary is placing campaign strategy ahead of the views of the democratic party.

  • Wow. Not a fan, eh?

    Never was; never will be. I was brought up to believe that you don’t become a Democrat by simply tying a plate-sized ‘D” to a cutesy little leather cord and hanging it around your neck. It’s something that you have to earn and learn. It’s something where if you do something, and discover later that it was the wrong thing to do, then you own up to it—and not just make excuses and blame others. It’s something where you don’t take one side in a position, support that side for over a decade, and then change sides overnight for political expediency—while simultaneously denying that long-term support for the one side in the first place.

  • I’m not inclined to hold Clinton’s ‘02 vote against her.

    I am.

    A president’s job is, first and foremost, to make judgments. A decision to go to war is one of the most critical judgments a president makes. A decision to support a president in going to war is one of the most critical judgments a senator can make. Hillary often touts her experience and judgment. Well, the AUMF was a chance for her to show the quality of her judgment. She blew it.

    Somewhere along the line it became the path of least resistance for American politicians to support war. It’s a hideous obscenity that this is so; war should be a last, desperate resort, not a lazy choice we make to get along with the crowd.

    If Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations are destroyed by her ill-considered Iraq war vote, it’ll serve to concentrate the minds of future legislators considering future measures of the same type. Which I think will be a very good thing. Voting to go to war should be a hard, hard thing, and the senators and congresspeople who do it should understand that they are putting their careers on the line, particularly if they vote “yes.”

    So yes, I hold the AUMF against Hillary. If it came to a choice between her and McCain for president, I’d vote for her. But I wouldn’t like it.

  • Hillary did make a speech when she cast her vote in ’02. I’m amazed there isn’t a film clip
    of it now on YouTube. She actually lavished praise on Bush for pushing the resolution.

    Even more upsetting to me is that Hillary never consulted competent scientific specialists
    to ascertain whether it was possible for Iraq to hide a nuclear arms program from on ground
    UN inspectors helped by US satellite inspection program. Our photographic surveillance of
    the world had been going on for over 20 years, and any hidden underground site had been
    photographed as it was dug.

    There are only three ways of accumulating the plutonium or U-235 needed for bomb-making.
    1. The most cost-efficient way is separating the plutonium from spent fuel rods in a nuclear-
    powered electric generating plant. Saddam’s only such plant had been destroyed by the
    Israeli air force some 20 years earlier.
    2. One or more hidden nuclear piles. This is similar to the 1st method, but has no
    economic benefit. Satellite surveillance makes “hidden” very unlikely. Further, once you set
    up a pile, there is no way to hide the radiation evidence from on-site inspectors. It lingers for
    thousands of years. You will also need flowing water to carry off the unutilized heat. Thus, the
    possible sites are limited.
    3. Centrifuge separation of U-235 hexafluoride from U-238 hexafluoride. This is technologically
    tricky. Any chatter in the centrifuge remixes the very partial separation obtained, and the tens of
    thousands of high speed centrifuges need lots of incoming electric power lines, providing a clue
    to the inspection teams.

    I am especially dismayed that she didn’t seek the opinions of nuclear experts. The question of
    Saddam’s nuclear capabilities should have been discussed with the community of nuclear
    physicists, and she never did this.

  • Isn’t she on the Arms Appropriation Committee, didn’t she vote for the Iran’s army to be terroist? She has approved all the NO COST, NO BID CONTRACTS for the war. Hillary can not tell the truth. She never mention she was against the war until the poles told her to be against the war. The nation has had enough of this liar that changes the rules as she goes along. 35 years of fighting these guys is a joke.

  • I understand that many, if not most, Democratic voters are willing to chalk the AUMF in Iraq vote to a miscalculation on Senator Clinton’s part. I, however, do not see that. Based upon other votes that she’s cast in conjunction with the history of the Clinton administration, i see a pattern. I believe that she was very much for invading Iraq and the general idea of imperial wars of choice.

    Go back to the Clinton bombing of Iraq and the tall tale about Saddam not allowing the inspectors to do their job. Scott Ritter has debunked that thoroughly. In fact, the Clinton administration ordered those inspectors to leave before floating the story. They weren’t “forced” to bomb Iraq, they chose to do it. Moreover, most principles meetings tended more towards hawkish solutions (e.g. arming the Bosnians). What kept those solutions from being implemented was an unwillingness to explain American deaths…not an aversion to death.

    Her miscalculation was the same as other politicians in 2002. They confused the first Gulf War with what would happen in the Second Gulf War. They imagined easy victory; however, they didn’t factor in the very different objectives of the two conflicts. H.W. Bush planned only to defeat Iraq on the conventional battlefield and expel its army from Kuwait. Actually conquering and occupying the country is a whole different ball of wax that, apparently, wasn’t even considered.

    This was the “out” that Democratic politicians should have been hammering…

    I realize that cutting off funds seems like a good way to stop the occupation, but it isn’t because it wouldn’t, necessarily, accomplish the task. And if it did, it would do so in the messiest way possible.

    Everything after the authorization vote is akin to being convinced to try cliff diving into treacherous waters…and then remembering that you’re not a very good swimmer on the way down. It’s too late to do anything except get better at swimming really fast or drown.

    Her excuses are just that, excuses. And i’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that if she wins the presidency her tune will change back to the one that led her to vote for the AUMF in the first place. She’s only against it because it didn’t work.

  • No one, including Obama, can say how he would have voted under those circumstances, because he was never in those circumstances. Hindsight is 20-20. He succeeding votes tend to suggest he might have voted similarly to Clinton on the first vote since he did so on the others.

  • Number Cruncher, good post– I happen to work in a related field, and most definitely was not sold on the Iraq war as it started. You did, however, forget a fourth way to accumulate the needed U-235 or Pu-239:

    4) Purchase material on the black market.

    The forged nature of the “yellowcake letter” fiasco and the fact that yellowcake is not really appropriate material for atomic weapons manufacture without enrichment notwithstanding, there is still a lot of nuclear-quality material that has not been accounted for in the former Soviet Union republics. It is doubtful that we can even perform a full accounting of all material due to records and QA issues predating the dissolution of the USSR.

    I’ll also mention that (2) is an even more unlikely option than you suggest, because in order to produce Pu-239, you want U-238 to absorb neutrons which leads to a nuclear decay with the end product of Pu-239. However, such neutron absorption in U-238 becomes significant only for high energies (or, if you prefer to think of it this way, high speeds) of neutrons. Since water tends to slow down neutrons, piles that are built explicitly to produce weapons-grade material tend to be air-cooled piles that use some graphite to slow down just enough neutrons to keep the fission process going that supplies more neutrons (fission of U-235 is more effective at lower energies for neutrons). Using that type of technology to produce enough material for a test, much less a weapon, is most likely well beyond the capability of any but the most advanced countries.

    The “evidence” presented for Saddam acquiring nuclear capabilities was always based on either #3 or #4 because these are the two routes by which you can get U-235. Pu-239 nuclear weapons are much more difficult to design than U-235 nuclear weapons.

    I’ve probably chattered on more than anyone cares for, but what one could take away from all of this is that when it comes to nuclear weapons, there are a number of things that a country can do, but all of these things require varying levels of technological capability. When people start agitating for war against countries that most likely don’t have the requisite level of technological capability, a certain amount of skepticism is a good idea (ESPECIALLY when the IAEA isn’t willing to back up the US).

  • Her point is that a speech is not a decision. Senate votes are decisions that have consequences. Speeches are words that have no consequences. Obama was not in a position to make any decisions concerning the war when he made his 2002 speech. When he was in position to make decisions (not speeches) he did nothing differently than Clinton did. Words are easy. People must live with decisions because decisions affect people’s lives. If Obama and his supporters do not understand that, they are not ready for prime time.

    Calling her statement a lie is just more Obama smear tactics. It is ugly and it stinks. Clinton is right to emphasize the difference between something that matters and has consequences and something that is just hot air.

  • Clinton seems to be reduced to playing to the uninformed as well as the baser (negative) instincts of the electorate. This is reason in and of itself not vote for her. It is amoral position (typical for politics, I know, but amoral nonetheless). It is an “ends justify the means” position. Fortunately, she doesn’t appear to be getting away with it.

  • Well she consistently refused to apologise for her vote. She was seeking to enhance her “security credentials” as a Democrat, going up against McCain (or whomever) but it’s NO EXCUSE as thousands of Americans and a million or more Iraqis have died meanwhile.

  • When Bush goes to war using her Iran authorization vote as justification, will she wish she hadn’t made that vote either?

    She made the first mistake arguably armed with false information that Iraq was getting nukes imminently. She had confirmed intel that Iran wasn’t even close at the time of th second vote.

    Fool her once, shame on Bush. Don’t even try to fool her the second time, shame the hell out of her.

    I won’t vote for her. I can’t.
    No one should.

  • Those who continually make excuses for Mrs. Clinton – hey, the briefing said Bosnia was dangerous, so she just got confused and thought she was being shot at, in spite of her suggestion that she was regularly sent to places that were too dangerous for the president – should get used to it, against the unlikely possibility she becomes president. That’s how she’d govern, too: glamorize a bad situation or decision with fluff and braggadocio, defend it with truculence, then deny she ever made it at all, and when all else has been tried, say she misspoke. You can bet if that sniper story had caught on, made her look like a hero and started her numbers trending upward, there isn’t a force on earth that could convince her to admit she made it up.

    You’re quite right, Mary – Obama wasn’t in a position in 2002 to make any decisions on the Iraq war. Neither was Hillary Clinton. If either of them were, there is every reason to believe that Clinton would have taken the country to war, and Obama would not. How in hell is a decision that dragged the country into a disastrous, expensive war that makes the rest of the world spit when somebody says “America”, “ready for prime time”? This is a constant in your arguments; that Hillary Clinton would be “ready on Day One” and Obama would run in circles fluttering his hands and saying, “where do I go? What do I do?” Where do you get such notions? Hillary Clinton supported the war enthusiastically, regularly tried to out-hawk the Republicans with her tough talk, and only speaks against the war since it became indefensible. She still knows there’s nothing to unify the country behind a president like a good resounding military victory, and if there’s any way she thought she could achieve it in Iraq, she’d do it no matter what it cost.

    At what point is a lie allowed to be called a lie? She says she started criticizing the war before Obama did. To who – her imaginary friend? Everything in the record, in her own words coming out of her own mouth, says it isn’t true. Something that is not true is untrue, and when it’s a spoken statement that is demonstrably untrue, it’s called a lie.

    You’ve made it perfectly clear you despise Obama. Fine. I like him, and despise Clinton. Nothing is likely to change either of our minds. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. But here’s a hint; when you defend your champion, come up with some facts to back up your defense. Not pulled from Wikipedia, either.

  • During Bush’s January 28, 2008 State of the Union address, while he was cheerleading for the Iraq occupation, he stated “….Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.” At that point cheering and applause broke out by the Republicans in attendance. The camera first panned to Hillary Clinton who was on her feet smiling, clapping and cheering. The camera moved to Barak Obama who was seated, expressionless, with his arms folded in his lap, along with the majority of Democratic Party members who remained seated and did not applaud. Eight days before Super Tuesday Hillary could not contain her enthusiasm for the Iraq occupation and demonstrated her alignment with the neoconservatives while Obama and the majority of Democrats did exactly the opposite.

  • She thinks she is being smart but she is careless as hell and her gut instincts are almost always wrong — maybe not surprising from a former “Goldwater girl”. That is the biggest problem I see. In this way, she is no different from McCain, who really is dumb as a rock.

  • To me, Clinton’s pro-war vote simply shows that she is one of the many Democrats in Washington during Bush’s first term who didn’t have the guts to stand up to Bush and stand up for what their own party believed. Like many Democratic “leaders” at that time, she ran for cover on national security issues because she didn’t know how to counter Bush’s flag waving. One may ask, of course, what political leaders are for, if not to convince the people that their policies are the right ones for the nation? Like many of her fellow Dems, Clinton decided she couldn’t do that on national security issues, so she ceded the issues to Bush and the warmongers. The war we have now is the result of their cowardice just as much as it is the result of the egotism and stupidity of Bush and his supporters.

    I have heard it said that the Iraq war happened because every major institution of politics failed the American people — the presidency, the Congress, and the news media. Hilary and the other leaders of the Democratic party belong in that group of failures. If she is not ashamed of what she did, she should be. I am certainly ashamed of her.

  • spiegel interview with david kay
    German Intelligence Was ‘Dishonest, Unprofessional and Irresponsible’ : David Kay
    John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach, Der Spiegel

    G&R : As head of the Iraq Survey Group, you led the effort to follow up on the claims made by ‘Curveball,’ the asylum seeker from Iraq who told German intelligence that Saddam Hussein was building mobile biological weapons laboratories. Do you remember the first time you began to doubt his story?
    Kay : The real shock was that the CIA had never spoken to him directly. To this day, I still don’t understand. How can you hang the most dramatic part of a case for war on an individual no American agent has ever directly debriefed? I realized right away, we needed to follow up in Baghdad on whatever leads we had concerning ‘Curveball.’
    G&R : Were you briefed by the BND, the German foreign intelligence agency, before you went to Iraq?
    Kay : No way. This is part of how toxic and how horrible the relationship was between the BND and the CIA. The Germans never gave us ‘Curveball’s’ real name which once lead to minor disaster in Germany.
    G&R : What happened?
    Kay : Members of the CIA based in Munich thought they had his name and went out and found someone in Germany with a very similar name. They found him — a young Iraqi — and knocked on his door without approval by the German authorities. But it was the wrong guy, and he ended up calling the police on the intruders.
    G&R : The argument made by the Germans for not providing access to ‘Curveball’ was not totally illogical. He claimed to hate Americans. It would have been a breach of trust if they had turned him over to the CIA.
    Kay : We know today, of course, that it was all nonsense. First of all, we have people who speak 100 percent fluent German or Arabic. After the war, armed with the name from the British, we sought out his family. His mother and brother were very cooperative. They told us that he spoke English — the language of instruction at his university was English. They also said he had plans to emigrate to the United States. My men saw his room and there were posters on the wall of American pop stars.
    G&R : It sounds as though you were the first one who really had the chance to cross-check what ‘Curveball’ said …
    Kay : … which is simply unbelievable. He was a defector for God’s sake and the BND was convinced that his information was so valuable that they distributed over 100 reports on ‘Curveball’ to their allies. I stand by my criticism of the BND to this day: To not have checked up on the exile Iraqis in Germany who knew him, not to have made all the appropriate efforts to validate the source, is a level of irresponsibility that is awfully hard to imagine in a service like the BND. And then, the fact that they failed to provide direct access to him remains one of the most striking things. It was a blockade that made it impossible for any other service to validate his information. The German service did not live up to their responsibilities or to the level of integrity you would expect from such a service.
    G&R : Do you have an explanation as to why this happened?
    Kay : I first thought it was because the two governments had anything but a congenial relationship with each other. I thought maybe the BND was under political pressure and couldn’t cooperate for political reasons. If the Germans had just said to the CIA, ‘We can’t do this because of Schröder,’ I would have said, ‘OK, I understand.’ But to tell us this stuff which was demonstrably untrue, like he hates America and doesn’t speak English — that was dishonest, unprofessional and irresponsible.
    G&R : Are you saying that German intelligence knowingly deceived the United States about ‘Curveball?’ Within the BND, at least, it seems that many actually believed him.
    Kay : It was mysterious to me. I’ve thought about it for a long time and I have an explanation. If there is an intelligence service which has had experience with defectors, then it is the BND. They had so many Soviet defectors. But exactly those people who specialize in defectors and how to deal with them — the people from the clandestine or operative side — had nothing to do with ‘Curveball.’ He was primarily run by people from the analytical and technology side of the BND who don’t know that the first thing you do when someone walks through the door is you find out who he is, who knows him, who his real name is and what his real story is. But also there was a desire to believe. Fabricators work best when there is a desire to believe.
    G&R : When you were in Iraq, your team found out that ‘Curveball’s’ story had nothing to do with the truth. How did CIA leadership react to your findings?
    Kay : With resistance and denial. It was an absolute refusal to face reality. I just kept on hearing, ‘don’t stop now. Keep working. You must be wrong. You will find it. Keep looking.’
    G&R : But nothing was ever found …
    Kay : No and my e-mails became less and less friendly. There was a war going on in Baghdad, the members of my team were risking their lives every day, and the Germans kept on refusing us access to the source. When we finally got permission, it was even worse.
    Kay : I sent two of my best people over to Germany — they were gone for a total of two weeks. But they were not allowed to interrogate him. They were allowed to provide some initial questions and then watch it all on video from another room. But they were not allowed to submit follow up questions that could be immediately asked, which is the very essence of an interrogation. They were mad and I was mad. Yet what they watched on video was enough to convince them that ‘Curveball’ was a fabricator.
    G&R : Would it really have made a difference if ‘Curveball’ had been exposed as a fraud before the war? The Bush administration wanted to go to war no matter what.
    Kay : Sure, the administration had that position. But don’t underestimate the importance that the link to al-Qaida, the weapons of mass destruction and, specifically, the biological weapons labs played in Congress. You can be pretty certain it would have changed the congressional vote, the authorization. Let me just say, I do not believe it would have been easy to take this nation to war if you had not had the intelligence.
    G&R : What can we all learn from the ‘Curveball’ disaster?
    Kay : I feel disillusioned. I think that ‘Curveball’ was the biggest and most consequential intelligence fiasco of my lifetime. It shows how important effective civilian control of the intelligence services is, because non-transparency is extraordinarily dangerous for democracy. In an intelligence service, people who don’t make waves are rewarded. I am worried that the same mistakes could be repeated all over again.

  • CB: “…it’s discouraging that [Hillary] was willing, at least yesterday, to start bragging about criticism she didn’t make.“.

    It’s discouraging that Hillary is willing, at least daily, to tell out-and-out lies in order to win votes.

  • People are calling this “Hillary’s song”. Got to love that.

    dlsxpatriate.blogspot.com

  • It’s discouraging that Hillary is willing, at least daily, to tell out-and-out lies in order to win votes.

    Discouraging, but not particularly surprising.

  • Mary says: Senate votes are decisions that have consequences…People must live with decisions because decisions affect people’s lives.

    Indeed. In this case a few of the consequences are that 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, that our international standing is in the toilet and that we’re stuck in a quagmire that makes Vietnam look like a church social.

    Oh, and that your girl Hillary Clinton will never be president.

  • Hillary needs to quit with this ‘one vote’ difference.

    Only a sleep deprived person would try and pawn a major political blunder as one tiny vote. It’s offensive to all, and extremely insulting to our military and Iraqi civilians. That one tiny vote has changed the world, that one tiny vote has cost the world far too many human lives, that one tiny vote has cost world untold trillions. That one tiny vote is the biggest vote of our generation.

    And I am sorry, but I strongly disagree with CB about letting politicians off the hook. You vote for war, it turns into a disaster, you should be done politically. Thousands of political careers have ended for far less. Otherwise we end up here; the same clowns that brought us the biggest global disaster I will ever experience, are still around and they have the audacity to ask me to trust them to fix the very mess they created. Not me, no way, it the real world when you make a colossal mistake you resign, and under no circumstance do you buck for a promotion.

  • Ah, back in 2002, the winds of Bush fascism were blowing strong, so Queen Hillary just put up her sails and went along for the ride in the prevailing righties… Now, some six years later, she finds herself becalmed… All her huffing and puffing can’t move her ship, for her sails are tattered by her lies and smears. Heck of a sail, Hillary.

  • W1 (43): great article. thanks. Of course Kay’s comments conflict with what Tyler Drumheller, for CIA man in Germany at the time, said. He claims he had been told by BND that they had serious doubts about Curveball, and that he warned Tenet, McGlaughlin and others several times about this.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB234/index.htm

    And David Kay had been VP of SAIC, a defense contractor. As such he was a leading proponent of the invasion. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he finds others to blame.

  • More details on so-called “intelligence” can be found in following websites….

    The Real Story of ‘Curveball’: How German Intelligence Helped Justifythe US Invasion of Iraq:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542840,00.html

    SPIEGEL Interview with Lawrence Wilkerson: ‘The Germans Share in theResponsibility:

    ‘http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542881,00.html

    Photo Gallery: The Worst Moment of Colin Powell’s Career:

    http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,30020,00.html

    The Iraq Fiasco, 2003- 2008: Life in Baghdad since the Fall of Saddam:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,541977,00.html

  • Her own words are the worst criticism: “I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.”

    Her best assessment was worse than mine, and I didn’t have a staff or access to government documents, just reporting from Knight-Ridder, the foreign press, and the ability to imagine that the Bush administration might exaggerate or even lie outright. (No one listening to the administration’s rhetoric could have truly believed they would allow the UN to handle the situation.)

    It also really wasn’t that “uncertain” a time. Iraq hadn’t attacked us, had no real interest to serve by attacking us, and, based on the reports of neutral observers, didn’t have the means to attack us. Plus, we were still engaged with the battle against those who HAD attacked us, a completely different set of folks.

    She’s running on her judgment and experience, but on that critical test hers was worse than mine. So why should I let her make decisions for me?

    It’s even worse when I think, as I must, about the possibility that part of her assessment of “the interest of our country” involved believing it required her having a shot at the Presidency, and that being “tough” on the war was the way to do that.

  • YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

    If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose 😉 husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

    You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. 🙂

    Best regards

    jacksmith…

    p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

    If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…

  • DON’T BE DUPED !!!

    Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

    But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

    I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

    You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

    Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

    As much as 30% of Obama’s primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

    Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

    If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

    The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

    I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

    The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

    Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

    “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

    Sincerely

    jacksmith…

  • I see the let Jack Schitt (#54 @55) out from the coop for the weekend again, so he can do his bit towards crowding the e-space with his copy-and-paste skills…

  • How many times and how many different ways do you need Hillary Clinton to say “I’m sorry?” She’s done it THREE times in the last several weeks, and if you will look — I mean REALLY look — at her U.S. Senate record, it becomes pretty apparent that she has been working toward a higher purpose on Iraq than simply using our men and women as fodder.

    I point to at least two instances in which she supported timetables for withdrawal and/or forced notification to Bush to bring the troops home. Sen. Obama didn’t support these measures, regardless of his so-called “prescience” about Iraq or his so-called anti-war rhetoric.

    Second Point: their records are similar, but not substantially the same – even to disagree with Clinton – because she at least supported timetables (while O didn’t – at least not until very recently).

    Third Point: the blogosphere (Carpetbagger included) is becoming sadistic in your tired reiterations that Clinton should apologize for her decision. John Edwards and John Kerry COMBINED didn’t get this kind of sadistic treatment from you. Short of prostrating herself, I’m not sure what else she can do. And in the end, will it really matter to you? I doubt it!

    Fourth Point: why aren’t you pointing out that O’s campaign is once again doing their own flip-flop on Iraq and troop withdrawal/reduction/drawdown? Where are you on this hypocrisy?

  • “If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children.”

    Hey, Jacksmith (or Mark Penn or Harold Ickes)

    From OpenSecrets.com
    Hillary Clinton Lifetime Donations based on Sector
    Finance/Insur/RealEst $23,134,520
    Health $5,297,655

    Barack Obama Lifetime Donations based on Sector
    Finance/Insur/RealEst $16,419,181
    Health $3,925,575

    So what the FUCK are YOU talking about?

  • Mabelle55,

    Well John Edwards APOLOGIZED for his flawed vote in 2006.
    Kerry also APOLOGIZED in 2006

    From a very stupid news source.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200606/POL20060613d.html

    As for Hils? All I hear are crickets and the screams of the dead and dying.

    It’s not sadistic. Most of the people at this CB were pretty much against the war since it began. We don’t have access to top secret intel. We didn’t have anything but our instincts telling us this didn’t pass the smell test. We can accept if someone said, I failed and was wrong. It doesn’t change anything, but it means that they realized it.

    If Hils had the iron to say she was wrong in 2006 or 2007, she would have defused Obama’s main line of attack and we wouldn’t be talking about Obama by now. But this was a major miscalculation just like pretty much everything since her blown attempt at Healthcare reform. What are you Hilsbots going to come up with next? She was the one who captured Sadamm or she was at Tora Bora, leading the hunt for OBL?

  • I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech

    But she did make a speech. On the Senate floor:

    And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

    Her speech is a mixture of Republican talking points combined with nonsense about the vote for the AUMF actually being a vote against the use of force. Like too many Democrats, she avoided her constitutional obligation to debate and declare war and excused it as an effort to give the president a leverage with the U.N.

    Everyone in the country knew that this was a vote for war disguised in such a way that Senators could claim credit if the war was a success and innocence if the war became a quagmire.

  • “any future President”

    Ugh, she is always thinking about herself and no one else…personally, I will never forgive her for her vote on the Iraq war. Never…

  • Republicans are gnashing their teeth at the possibility that Hillary will not get the Democratic nomination, as witnessed by James Carville’s (husband of Mary Matalin, GOP strategist and lifelong Republican booster) fury at Bill Richardson’s decision to endorse Obama. They’re ready for Hillary, have the attack machine preprogrammed so that all they have to do is push “play” – but it depends on Hillary clinching the nomination.

    I enjoyed your “you might be an idiot” list, jacksmith, but one should be in no such quandary regarding the relative idiocy of its author (or should I say, repeater). Only an idiot would suggest Barack Obama was faring poorly because he had outspent Clinton (he can afford to outspend Clinton because of donations from his supporters: those are people who give him money because they hope he’ll be the president) but can only manage a “tenuous tie” with her. For starters, he’s clearly in the lead, by every measure except superdelegates. He’s closing that gap fast, and Mrs. Clinton is now insisting that all delegates are free to vote the way they want anyway. This is because she hopes to peel off pledged delegates from states Obama has already won, but it also frees pledged delegates from states she won to vote their consciences or the will of their constituents. Obama is well in the lead in every other category, and gaining a little all the time. Mrs. Clinton’s gap isn’t closing, it’s widening.

    Hillary Clinton is hanging on, praying that reporters will uncover that Obama’s a pedophile, or that he’ll get caught driving drunk, or that letters from bin Laden will be found in his briefcase: anything that will reverse her slide. And it could happen: McCain was down and out, penniless and on the verge of quitting, and look at him now. But that’s because the rest of the field was just too scary, and it’s not a strong presidential position when that’s your best hope.

  • Mary (#34) said:
    Her point is that a speech is not a decision. Senate votes are decisions that have consequences. Speeches are words that have no consequences. Obama was not in a position to make any decisions concerning the war when he made his 2002 speech. When he was in position to make decisions (not speeches) he did nothing differently than Clinton did. Words are easy. People must live with decisions because decisions affect people’s lives. If Obama and his supporters do not understand that, they are not ready for prime time.

    Mary, while I understand your point here, that Obama was not in the Senate and therefore could not vote on the authorization, I take exception with your follow up point about Obama’s votes for funding since he has been there. It is entirely a different animal altogether to vote against funding once the deed is done. Like it or not, the decisions are much much more difficult once a war has been started. Like it or not, the reality is that once boots are on the ground and bullets are flying we are left with only bad choices: 1- fund the war while trying to engineer an eventual drawdown of troops with the least amount of bloodshed, while simultaneously minimalizing the chaos that will occur as we leave– 2- cut off all funds while troops are still on the ground and watch our troops suffer as supplies dwindle and body counts rise, while sumultaneously destroying any goodwill with families who have family in Iraq.

    When Obama arrived in the Senate, the truly bad decision had already been made. The authorization vote was the moment our leaders could have made the right choice. Clinton was among the many who chose poorly.

  • When Obama arrived in the Senate, the truly bad decision had already been made.

    Precisely. The deed was done. Many who opposed the war, reluctantly supported funding the occupation because we believed that simply leaving would result in chaos, millions of refugees fleeing their homes, Iran expanding it’s influence, civil war between the Sunni, Shia and Kurds and death squads roaming the country. (Those were some of the reasons we opposed the war to begin with). We believed in “you break it you bought it”.

    Who knew we’d end up with the same results after pouring a half trillion dollars into the effort.

  • The vote for support of our troops had to be made. No one could add to the
    horrible situation our troops are in.
    Do other bloggers get tired of the same messages posted daily and on all
    blogs by these radicals?
    And the comments that are so wordy, know they are thought out etc,
    but I skim past them as prefer short, to the point messages.
    Just my thoughts.

  • Comments are closed.