Clinton’s GWU Iraq Speech

On March 17, New York Senator and Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton gave a speech at George Washington University outlining her plans to de-escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Though she called for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades over the next several years, she continued to refuse to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion, to acknowledge the illegality of the war, or to fully explain her false claims made at that time regarding Iraq’s military capabilities and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Nor was she able to offer an explanation as to what led to her dramatic shift from a supporter of the ongoing war and occupation as recently as a year and a half ago to her current more critical perspective.

Below are excerpts from her speech, followed by annotated comments:

“It has been five years this week since our president took us to war in Iraq.”

President George W. Bush was not solely responsible for taking the United States to war. He had accomplices, such as Hillary Clinton. Bush was only able launch the invasion as a result of being provided with the authorization to do so by a Congressional resolution. Clinton was among a minority of congressional Democrats who – combined with a Republican majority – provided sufficient votes to give the go-ahead for this illegal and disastrous war.

“Bringing lasting stability to the region will take a president with the strength and determination, the knowledge and confidence…to rebuild our military readiness, to care for our veterans, and to redouble our efforts against al-Qaeda. If you give me the chance, I will be that president.”

As predicted prior to the invasion, the over-extension of the U.S. armed forces, the enormous costs, and the high casualty rates resulting from the war has greatly harmed U.S. military readiness, the ability to care for veterans, and the struggle against al-Qaeda. It’s hard to imagine how someone who supported the invasion can be trusted to be the kind of president who will be able to address those needs.

“Nearly 4,000 of [our troops] have, by now, made that ultimate sacrifice. Tens of thousands more have suffered wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds, and their hearts. Their families have sacrificed, too, in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children… Our armed forces are stretched to near the breaking point with many of our troops on their second, third, or fourth tours of duty. … Taking into consideration the long-term costs of replacing equipment and providing medical care for troops and survivors’ benefits for their families, the war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over $1 trillion.”

In scholarly journals, in newspaper columns, in congressional testimony, on this web site, and elsewhere, there were ample warnings of just such disastrous consequences resulting from a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Regardless, Clinton apparently believed at the time that seizing control of that oil-rich country was worth the sacrifice. Only since public opinion polls indicated that she had no hope of winning the Democratic presidential nomination if she continued to support the war, did she start talking about the war’s negative consequences.

“I have met with our soldiers and military leaders [in Iraq]. I have met with Iraqi local, regional, and national elected and other influential officials.”

During her one trip to Iraq, in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was “functioning quite well,” although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival, requiring a helicopter to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted – in a manner remarkably similar to statements by Vice President Dick Cheney – that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.

“The American people don’t have to guess whether I’m ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I’d be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward. I’ve been working day-in and day-out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war.”

In reality, until very recently, Clinton was one of the leading senators supporting the war. Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that – contrary to Clinton’s initial justification for the U.S. conquest – Iraq did not have “weapons of mass destruction,” active WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda as she and other supporters of the war had claimed, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. When Representative John Murtha (D-PA) made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces “a big mistake.” In 2006, when Senator John Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it.

“Now, my Democratic opponent talks a great deal about a speech he gave in 2002. He is asking us to judge him by his words, and words can be powerful, but only if the speaker translates them into action and solutions. Senator Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn’t start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead.”

It’s ironic that Clinton, in a desperate effort to cover up for her support for the war and her lies to justify it, would belittle Obama’s accurate and prescient understanding that invading Iraq was wrong. Back in October 2002, Obama publicly acknowledged that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors” and that “even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He also recognized that “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.” That same month in Washington, however, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq was such a dire threat to U.S. national security that it required her, “in the best interests of our nation,” to vote to authorize the invasion.

Furthermore, Obama did a lot more than give a speech: he gave interviews, lobbied members of Congress, and made a series of other statements in which he warned of the violent sectarian and ethnic divisions which could emerge following a U.S. invasion and occupation, the risks of a long-term U.S. military commitment, and the dangerous precedent of giving a carte blanche for a pre-emptive war.

It was true that, much to the disappointment of many of his supporters, Obama did not initially take leadership in opposition to the war once he was elected to the U.S. Senate, though it is customary for freshman senators to take a back seat on foreign policy issues during the early part of their first term. Yet, by November of his first year in office, while Clinton was still backing Bush administration policy, Obama was calling for a reduction in U.S. forces. Within a year, Obama introduced legislation setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, well prior to Clinton supporting such legislation.

“As we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our strategic interests in this region. The reality is that this war has made the terrorists stronger. Well, they may not have been in Iraq before the war, they are there now, and we cannot allow Iraq to become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us and our friends and allies. So let me be clear – under my plan, withdrawing from Iraq will not mean retreating from fighting terrorism in Iraq. That’s why I will order small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al- Qaeda in Iraq. This will protect Iraqi citizens, our allies, and our families right here at home.”

Clinton did not always acknowledge the absence of terrorist operations in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation. Indeed, in order to justify her vote to authorize the invasion, she insisted that Saddam had “given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” This came despite top strategic analysts correctly informing her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein’s secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, despite doubts of such claims appearing in the National Intelligence Estimates made available to her, and despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time. Now, as a direct consequence of the invasion and occupation she helped make possible, Clinton uses the very real presence of terrorist groups, including at least major faction which identifies with al-Qaeda, as an excuse to continue prosecuting the war.

Letter to My Daughter

Dear Kalila,

It has been five years since you, as a 12-year old 7th grader, joined your classmates in a walk-out at your school in protest of the impending invasion of Iraq.

You are now a 17-year old high school senior just months from graduating, and the war – which we were told would only involve U.S. combat forces for a few months – is still going on. As you enter college in the fall, some of your classmates whom you have known since childhood could be entering Iraq to fight in a war that should never have been fought.

As a consequence of this war of aggression, you are entering adulthood with the United States despised throughout the world and the threat of mega-terrorism from extremist groups higher than ever. Furthermore, it appears that this war will end up costing more than 3 trillion dollars, money that you will be paying, with interest, for decades to come. This money could instead have gone to health care, education, the environment, housing, public transportation, and other human needs that could have made your life and the lives of others of your generation safer, healthier, and happier. Already, the economic impact of the war is becoming apparent in your life. Your long-promised graduation present of a European trip is looking less affordable as the dollar plummets in value and your parents are scrambling – as a result of cutbacks in federal assistance – to figure out a way to pay your college tuition next year.

As you remember, your mother and I worked very hard to try to stop this war. We so very much wish you could have avoided experiencing, as we did during our adolescence, our country engaged in a brutal counter-insurgency war in a foreign land.

I remember how much you missed me as I traveled around the country giving speeches and interviews to try to convince the public and elected officials that Iraq was not a threat to our national security and that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a disaster. I remember your tears as you heard me denounced on national television as a “supporter of Saddam Hussein” and claims that my research “was funded by terrorists.” And you no doubt remember the negative impact the stress and exhaustion from that period had on my health as well as my relations with you, your siblings, and your mother.

Yet I also remember your pride in seeing me speak before half a million people in San Francisco at the anti-war march, your excitement in getting to use my backstage pass to meet Bonnie Raitt, and your appreciation of being a part of history that sunny February afternoon. I have seen you attend subsequent marches on your own, still convinced that, while unable to prevent the war, you could still try to end it.

You were born in October 1990 on the eve of the first U.S. war with Iraq. We gave you an Arabic name – meaning “beloved” – in part to honor the rich cultural traditions of a people whom our government is willing kill in order to control their natural resources. In certain respects, the United States has been killing Iraqis for almost your entire life. Meanwhile, a whole generation of your peers in that unhappy land has grown up knowing nothing but war, sanctions, and related hardships.

I think about the impact the invasion has had on you and how it has affected the way you see your country and its government. You figure that if a total idiot like your dad could figure out that Saddam Hussein could not have possibly reconstructed his capability of producing “weapons of mass destruction,” you logically assume that the president, vice-president, top cabinet officials, and congressional leaders of both political parties were lying when they said that he had. As a result, instead of coming of age with a healthy skepticism about your government, I’ve seen how you and many of your peers have developed a bitter cynicism, assuming that both Republicans and Democrats are willing to lie to their constituents in order to justify imperial conquest.

Whoever becomes the next president, however, this war will continue to impact your life for many years to come. Seeing you as a beautiful, smart, and competent young woman – facing an uncertain future in this militarized, divided, and economically weakened society – I wish there was something more I could have somehow done five years ago to prevent this war from happening.