Book Excerpt: 5 years later, senator still struggles with vote for the Iraq War

Clinton made clear such actions should not be limited to an attack on Afghanistan, which was sheltering the al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the attacks. She said it was imperative for Bush “not only to seek out and exact punishment on the perpetrators, but to make very clear that not only those who harbor terrorists, but those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever, will now face the wrath of our country.”

Saddam Hussein fit that description, according to Clinton, who proclaimed in October 2002 that the Iraqi dictator had “given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” By Clinton’s own standard, Saddam deserved “the wrath of our country.”

So she voted that month to give Bush the authorization to wage war on Iraq. She did this without reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the most detailed explanation of U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Although the classified, 90-page report was made available to all senators 10 days before the Iraq war vote, Clinton was one of 94 senators who chose not to read it, according to the new book “Meet the Next President.” Nonetheless, she spoke with conviction about Saddam’s arsenal.

“Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program,” Clinton said on the Senate floor. “Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscapeof the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed.”

Her use of the word “undisputed” was significant. It signaled that Clinton was not placing the onus of proof on Bush. Instead, she was determined to let the world know that she was making up her own mind, not blindly following the president.

“We need a tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy,” she said.

“This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction,” she added. “It is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.”

Indeed, Clinton felt so strongly that she voted against an amendment that would have required Bush to come back to Congress for a second, more explicit authorization in the event that the United Nations balked at war.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, which began in March 2003, succeeded in deposing Saddam in a matter of weeks. But the U.S.-led coalition misjudged the tenacity of a post-Saddam insurgency, which grew bloodier with each passing month. Still, Clinton stood by her vote.

“I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein,” she said in a December 2003 speech. “I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used. But I stand by the vote.”

When she spoke of her commitment to the war, Clinton sounded a lot like Bush.

“We have no option but to stay involved and committed,” she said. “We need more of something that is often in short supply here in our country: patience.”

How much patience? Clinton pointed to Germany, where U.S. forces have been stationed since the end of World War II.

“It took 10 years to create a stable, sovereign government, and we still have troops in Germany, as we do in Japan, as we do in South Korea, as we do in Bosnia, as we do in Kosovo,” she said. “So the idea that we can somehow bring about dramatic transformational change in either a short period of time or with a relatively limited financial commitment is contradicted by our own history.”

Clinton said it was imperative “to maintain domestic support for the patience that is required and the commitment that we’ve undertaken, since failure is not an option.”

“I worry a lot about how difficult it will be in the political arena to stay the course,” she fretted. “To create a deep and lasting support for what is necessary to be done to protect ourselves and to spread our values around the world, over however many years it may take.”

Again, her choice of words was important. It was difficult to imagine a more open-ended formulation than “however many years it may take.”

And yet it took only three years for Clinton herself to lose patience.

“Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq,” she told the New York Times last February. “I think they are at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is: What is this getting us? What is this doing for us?

“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could.”

By now, Clinton had jettisoned her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. But she stopped short of calling her vote for the Iraq war a mistake, as rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had done.

Nor has Clinton revised her stance on Bush’s decision in January to “surge” more than 20,000 additional troops into Iraq in an effort to bring the violence under control. Most observers, including anti-war Democrats such as Rep. John Murtha, now concede the surge is working.

But Clinton has not yet amended her assessment, rendered when the surge was first announced, that it was “a losing strategy” that “cannot be successful.”

[email protected]

About ‘Meet the Next President’