Hillary Clinton's history lesson

Clinton now says she didn't vote for "pre-emptive" war in Iraq. She needs to take another look at her hawkish record.

February 12, 2007 5:35 PM

Matthew Yglesias

"When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority," Senator Hillary Clinton explained last week to the New Hampshire Union-Leader, "I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war." And, indeed, she did say that. Speaking on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002 in favor of a resolution that would grant the president of the United States the authority to launch what he called a "pre-emptive" war, Clinton clearly stated: "my vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose - all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

But this doesn't put Clinton in the clear. The fact remains that the president asked the Senate for the authority to wage war on Iraq, and Clinton voted to give him that authority. What's more, on March 17, 2003, George W. Bush gave a nationally-televised address signaling his intention to use the authority Clinton granted him in order to wage a unilateral preventive war against Iraq. "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours," the president said. "[T]heir refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing." Clinton released a statement of her own that day, supporting the president's position. "Tonight," she said, "the president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war, and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly."

On the question of unilateralism, Bush said that "under Resolutions 678 and 687 - both still in effect - the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will." Clinton, similarly, argued in favor of unilateralism, saying that "while we wish there were more international support for the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, at this critical juncture it is important for all of us to come together in support of our troops and pray that, if war does occur, this missiion is accomplished swiftly and decisively with minimum loss of life and civilian casualites."

This is, however, all rather banal. Clinton is hardly an obscure figure, and her support for the Iraq War isn't obscure either. Everyone knows she backed the war and spent the subsequent years positioning herself as a leading Democratic hawk. From smacking down Howard Dean in December 2003, to calling for a larger army, to earning the praise of psychotic warmonger Marshall Wittman by attacking Bush from the right on Iran, she spent years affiliating herself with the party's miltiaristic wing.

The interesting question is why Clinton's campaign thinks she can get away with it. Most presidential candidates at least feel the need to nod in the direction of the anti-war liberals who will cast most of the primary votes. Team Clinton, however, seems to think that the liberal base - particularly African-Americans and women - are so entranced by her starpower that they'll swallow anything, including the bizarre up-is-downism implicit in her revisionist history of the war.

Matthew Yglesias is staff writer at the American Prospect and author of an eponymous blog. His writing has also appeared in Foreign Policy, Slate and the New York Times Magazine.