| I've been wrestling with this diary for a day and a half... basically as Iraq has moved into the background, I've spent a bit less time thinking about it, but then I saw something on TV that I had to write about. Here goes...
The horserace narrative has swung back into full tweety ahead over the weekend. But more troubling to me than the Clinton/Obama back-and-forth (and let me say, pretty much all of the Democrats running for Prez are equally complicit in Iraq in my eyes) was what Clinton repeated over and over during her interview on Meet the Press on Sunday. Her rationalization for her vote on the 2002 AUMF was 1) it was her understanding that the vote was not for actual use of force but rather for the threat of force 2) she thought inspectors would go back in 3) she found out later Bush was deceiving Congress (and the American people) by going in unilaterally on an inflated / fabricated case for war. In this characterization, Bush is the one who bears the full responsibility for the war. Here's what she said on the transcript:
Well, I have said that obviously, I would never do again what George Bush did with that vote. He misused and abused the authority that was given to him, in my opinion. And we can't turn the clock back. I've taken responsibility for it.
...
I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it.
...
It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job. That's not what I was told by the Bush White House. That's not what we were told in constant briefings from high-level Bush administration officials. That's not what the president told the country in his speech in Cincinnati shortly before the vote. If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.
Clinton is saying that Bush abused the power of war under false pretenses, and deliberately misled the country by lying about his intentions. Okay, I think we all can agree with that.
But this begs what should be a very obvious question, one that Russert did not ask. |
The follow-up question has to be:
Senator, you say very clearly that the President misled Congress about the case for war and his intentions to undertake pre-emptive military action. This is a very serious charge, that the president went beyond the bounds of the Constitution and acted illegally in sending our troops into an unnecessary war. Your colleague, Senator Feingold, attempted to bring a resolution for censure to the Senate, but no other Senators (including you or Senator Obama) supported it publicly. You have brought up leadership and experience during the campaign, and you just mentioned taking responsibility, so why did you not take the leadership role and pursue censure?
Now, I had been hoping for censure or impeachment to move forward, but had more or less grudgingly accepted that the 2006 congress wasn't particularly interested. But on Sunday, there I was watching Senator Clinton on MTP, using her talking points to make Bush into some sort of hybrid scapegoat/shield in order to deflect criticism of her conduct as a Senator during that time. It's rather disturbing to me personally, since I realized that Clinton is counting on my feelings about Bush and the war to cloud my judgment on her record. I was dismayed that she would implicitly push this frame that Congress, a co-equal branch of government, was powerless against a unitary executive who took control of the nation's war-making power. The power of Censure and Impeachment are right there in the Constitution. But I was more dismayed that Clinton was using Bush almost as a pinata type of distraction to wash her own hands of responsibility, in hopes that the electorate would turn to her to make everything OK. In light of the fact that nobody seems to be asking these questions of our elected leaders, it will probably wind up working.
To be fair, I've examined my perspective on the other leading candidates, Edwards and Obama, and I don't feel that much better about them in relation to Iraq. Obama is counting on the fact that he didn't have to vote in 2002 to say he would have voted against AUMF, and hoping progressives forget or are okay with the fact that he voted for all of the appropriations bills (as has Clinton). Edwards, early in the campaign, took the line that his vote for AUMF was wrong (you'll never hear Clinton say it in those terms) but he also did not take a leadership position when it counted, and was late to the party in calling (earlier in 2007) for Congress to demand a timeline. I have sided with Edwards mainly on economic / reform issues, but on Iraq there's not much of a clear difference for me. Cenk Uygur has a similar take:
I understand that leaders are supposed to lead. Yet, I have never seen Senator Clinton lead her fellow Democrats in a successful challenge of President Bush. Never. That's a pretty awful record.
Now, it would be one thing if George Bush was a popular president who was hard to defeat politically. But in fact, he is the opposite. He is the most deeply unpopular president of our lifetimes. And Hillary Clinton kept getting her ass kicked by that guy.
That's the real criticism that should be leveled against Hillary Clinton. Yet I have almost never seen anyone make this point on TV. Part of the reason for that, of course, is because her opponents, Barack Obama and John Edwards did no better in their time in the Senate. So, they are embarrassed into an awkward silence on the matter.
As Clinton says, we can't turn the clock back. That's why it's vitally important for Democrats in Congress - especially those who want to be our next president - to use censure (or impeachment) to make a clear mark in the record. As Senator Feingold states:
The history books should show that Congress formally condemned this President, and others in the administration who have so brazenly misled the American people and undercut the rule of law.
It might be late, but it's still important. I hope if anybody can get to a Clinton rally, if she's still taking audience questions someone will ask her this specific question. And ask Obama and Edwards - even though he's not in the Senate anymore - about censure too. Because it needs to be asked. And maybe if enough people keep asking, the press will notice and it will put more pressure on Congress to do something other than wait for 2009.
This diary was cross-posted at Open Left |
MLN is powered by