ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

At CFR; December 15, 2003

Excerpts from a fairly long and detailed speech:

Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.

I was especially pleased that the capture was led by the 4th Infantry Division, whom I visited in Kirkuk and had a a briefing from the commander, General Odierno, and during that briefing was given some insights into the efforts to apprehend Saddam. And it’s very good news indeed that they have come to fruition.

This General Odierno, let’s recall. Moving onwards:

This moment, however, cannot be just about congratulating ourselves and the Iraqi people for this capture. It should be a moment where we step back and consider how now to go forward. What is it we can do today, based on the circumstances of yesterday, that will strengthen our hand and move the Iraqis closer to a time when they can have self-government and create a stable, free, democratic Iraq?

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. 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 to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

It has been a continuing theme of my criticism and others that we would be further along, we would have more legitimacy, we would diminish the opposition and resentment that is fueling whatever remains of the insurgency if we had been willing to move to internationalize our presence and further action in Iraq. I believe that today. And in fact, I think that we now have a new opportunity for the administration to do just that.

I suppose you could subject this to some tortured readings but, again, the position seems fairly clear. Clinton voted to give Bush the authority to launch a war, knowing full well what she was doing. She has various disagreements with Bush’s conduct of the war, but not with the basic strategic logic underpinning it. In December 2003, she continues to support the war and to support the president’s maximalist war aims of “a stable, free, democratic Iraq.”

Politics

WSJ’s Paul Gigot: ‘We Didn’t Go To War Because Of Al Qaeda Links’

This morning on Fox News, Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot said the Pentagon report on Douglas Feith’s activities are irrelevant, claiming, “We didn’t go to war because of al Qaeda links.” Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/gigotqaeda.320.240.flv]

In fact, the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda links formed the basis of the administration’s rationale for war. Here’s what the resolution authorizing force against Iraq said:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq

Gigot claimed again late in the show that “we didn’t go to war” for al Qaeda links, but rather for WMD. NPR’s Juan Williams correctly noted that the reason the administration proffered for attacking Iraq was to prevent Saddam’s alleged WMD from falling into al Qeada’s hands. Here’s what Bush said:

We’ve already found confirmation that the Al Qaeda terrorists are pursuing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time there’s a danger of terror groups joining together with the regimes that have or are seeking to build such weapons. In Iraq, we know that Saddam Hussein is pressing forward with these capabilities. He has used weapons of mass destruction both in his war against Iran and against his own people. [10/2/02]

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Questions

Is there some reason you can’t donat eto political candidates (Obama, Clinton) using PayPal? Also, when did the max contribution go from $2,000 to $2,300? Did McCain-Feingold index the cap to inflation? And why is the Clinton campaign asking for contributions of up to $4,600? I understand you can de facto double the limit by donating once for the primary and once for the general election, but this seems different.

Media

An Insult

Hillary Clinton has a top-notch web operation, and here’s what they’ve sent out in defense of the proposition that her support for the war was not, in fact, support for the war:

Hillary was referring to this statement from her October 10, 2002 speech, which is fairly straight forward:

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, 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.

Yglesias says the only critical comment he could find that was critical of the rush to war was a press release about homeland security funding. During that time, as in her October 2002 speech, she advocated for an increased emphasis on inspections and a peaceful solution. Here are some citations:

JANUARY 2003: HILLARY SENDS LETTER TO POWELL, URGES HIM TO CONTINUE ROBUST INSPECTIONS: “If our words about supporting UN inspectors have any meaning and if we truly want the United Nations to be effective, we must act to support the UN arms inspectors …Additionally if we are truly serious about supporting the UN inspections we should increase our intelligence support to the inspectors.” [Letter to Colin Powell, 1/31/03]

MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES ‘PEACEFUL SOLUTION,’ PUSHES BUSH TO ‘ENLIST MORE SUPPORT’ FROM ALLIES: “‘It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection’…[T]he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. ‘The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,’ she added.” [AP, 3/3/03]

Honestly, I think this is a little bit childish and something of an insult to the intelligence of liberals everywhere. I’m opening to forgiving candidates who supported the war. Lots of people supported the war. I supported the war. And Hillary Clinton supported the war. When the war began, Clinton made a statement about it. I quoted that statement yesterday and you can read it here. It was a statement of support for the war.

Everybody knows this and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. The idea that we’re now supposed to spend the time between today and Iowa having a debate about whether or not Clinton backed a pre-emptive military attack on Iraq is a little bit insane. The war occurred, it occurred with her support, and it was a pre-emptive war. I don’t think this is a difficult question.

Politics

Kristol: Obama Is ‘The Opposite Of Lincoln,’ Would Have Been Pro-Slavery

Yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced his candidacy for president in Springfield, IL, where Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous “House Divided” address. In his speech, Obama reiterated his call to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq by March 2008.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol attacked Obama’s Iraq policy, saying he wants to appease terrorists like pro-slavery politician Stephen Douglas tried to appease slave-owners. Kristol said, “Obama’s speech is a ‘can’t we get along’ speech — sort of the opposite of Lincoln. He would have been with Stephen Douglas in 1858.”

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/kristoldouglas.320.240.flv]

Stephen Douglas supported the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857, and took the pro-slavery position that each territory should decide whether or not to allow slave-owning.

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Politics

U.S. sending third carrier strike group to Gulf.

picture-1.pngNewsweek on “The Hidden War With Iran.

At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up