Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Albatross

George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion may rank as the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history spreading chaos across the Mideast and now into Europe, yet polls show Democrats nationwide favor nominating Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war and backed it even after Bush’s WMD claims were debunked, recalls Stephen Zunes.

By Stephen Zunes

Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the only candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported the invasion of Iraq. That war not only resulted in 4,500 American soldiers being killed and thousands more permanently disabled, but also hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the destabilization of the region with the rise of the Islamic State and other extremists, and a dramatic increase in the federal deficit, resulting in major cutbacks to important social programs.

Moreover, the primary reasons Clinton gave for supporting President George W. Bush’s request for authorizing that illegal and unnecessary war have long been proven false.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

As a result, many Democratic voters are questioning, despite her years of foreign policy experience, whether Clinton has the judgment and integrity to lead the United States on the world stage. It was just such concerns that resulted in her losing the 2008 nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama, an outspoken Iraq War opponent.

This time around, Clinton supporters have been hoping that enough Democratic voters, the overwhelming majority of whom opposed the war, will forget about her strong endorsement of the Bush administration’s most disastrous foreign policy. Failing that, they’ve come up with a number of excuses to justify her October 2002 vote for the authorization of military force. Here they are, in no particular order:

–“Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”

At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later. (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)

Furthermore, if then-Sen. Clinton’s desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn’t have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.

In fact, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway.

Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country.

“The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

–“Nearly everyone in Congress supported the invasion of Iraq, including most Democrats.”

While all but one congressional Democrat, Representative Barbara Lee of California, supported the authorization of force to fight Al Qaeda in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, a sizable majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization to invade Iraq the following year.

There were 21 Senate Democrats, along with one Republican, Lincoln Chafee, and one independent, Jim Jeffords, who voted against the war resolution, while 126 of 209 House Democrats also voted against it.

Bernie Sanders, then an independent House member who caucused with the Democrats, voted with the opposition. At the time, Sanders gave a floor speech disputing the administration’s claims about Saddam’s arsenal. He not only cautioned that both American and Iraqi casualties could rise unacceptably high, but also warned “about the precedent that a unilateral invasion of Iraq could establish in terms of international law and the role of the United Nations.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, stood among the right-wing minority of Democrats in Washington.

The Democrats controlled the Senate at the time of the war authorization. Had they closed ranks and voted in opposition, the Bush administration would have been unable to launch the tragic invasion, at least not legally. Instead, Clinton and other pro-war Democrats chose to cross the aisle to side with the Republicans.

–“Her vote was simply a mistake.”

While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.

It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the “aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her decision, by her own admission, was quite conscious.

The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.

Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S. ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.

But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic Sen. Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war. It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”

As late as February 2007, Clinton herself refused to admit that her vote for the war resolution was a mistake. “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake,” she said while campaigning for president, “then there are others to choose from.” She only began to acknowledge her regrets when she saw the polling numbers showing that a sizable majority of Democrats opposed the decision to go to war.

–“She voted for the war because she felt it was politically necessary.”

First of all, voting for a devastating war in order to advance one’s political career isn’t a particularly strong rationale for why one shouldn’t share responsibility for the consequences, especially when that calculation proved disastrously wrong. Clinton’s vote to authorize the invasion was the single most important factor in convincing former supporters to back Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary, thereby costing her the nomination. Nevertheless, it still raises questions regarding Hillary Clinton’s competence to become president.

To have believed that supporting the invasion would somehow be seen as a good thing would have meant that Clinton believed that the broad consensus of Middle East scholars who warned of a costly counterinsurgency war were wrong, and that the Bush administration’s insistence that U.S. occupation forces would be “treated as liberators” was credible.

After all, for the war to have been popular, there would have had to be few American casualties, and the administration’s claims about WMDs and Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda would have had to be vindicated. Moreover, some sort of stable pro-Western democracy would have emerged in Iraq, and the invasion would have contributed to greater stability and democracy in the region.

If Clinton believed any of those things were possible, she wasn’t paying attention. Among the scores of reputable Middle East scholars with whom I discussed the prospects of a U.S. invasion in the months leading up to the vote, none of them believed that any of these things would come to pass. They were right.

Nor was pressure likely coming from Clinton’s own constituents. Only a minority of Democrats nationwide supported the invasion, and given that New York Democrats are more liberal than the national average, opposition was possibly even stronger in the state she purported to represent. Additionally, a majority of Americans polled said they would oppose going to war if Saddam allowed for “full and complete” weapons inspectors, which he in fact did.

Finally, the idea that Clinton felt obliged to support the war as a woman in order not to appear “weak” also appears groundless. Indeed, every female senator who voted against the war authorization was easily re-elected.

–“She thought Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and was supporting Al Qaeda.”

This is excuse is problematic on a number levels. Before the vote, UN inspectors, independent strategic analysts, and reputable arms control journals all challenged the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq had somehow rebuilt its chemical and biological weapons programs, had a nuclear weapons program, or was supporting Al Qaeda terrorists.

Virtually all of Iraq’s known stockpiles of chemical and biological agents had been accounted for, and the shelf life of the small amount of materiel that hadn’t been accounted for had long since expired. (Some discarded canisters from the 1980s were eventually found, but these weren’t operational.)

There was no evidence that Iraq had any delivery systems for such weapons either, or could build them without being detected. In addition, a strict embargo against imports of any additional materials needed for the manufacture of WMDs, which had been in effect since 1990, made any claims that Iraq had offensive capability transparently false to anyone who cared to investigate the matter at that time.

Most of the alleged intelligence data made available to Congress prior to the war authorization vote has since been declassified. Most strategic analysts have found it transparently weak, based primarily on hearsay by Iraqi exiles of dubious credibility and conjecture by ideologically driven Bush administration officials.

Similarly, a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled by the mid-1990s, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. So it’s doubtful Clinton actually had reason to believe her own claims that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, there was no credible evidence whatsoever that the secular Baathist Iraqi regime had any ties to the hardline Islamist group Al Qaeda, yet Clinton distinguished herself as the only Senate Democrat to make such a claim. Indeed, a definitive report by the Department of Defense noted that not only did no such link exist, but that none could have even been reasonably suggested based on the evidence available at that time.

Moreover, even if Iraq really did have “weapons of mass destruction,” the war would have still been illegal, unnecessary, and catastrophic.

Roughly 30 countries (including the United States) have chemical, biological, or nuclear programs with weapons potential. The mere possession of these programs is not legitimate grounds for invasion, unless one is authorized by the United Nations Security Council, which the invasion of Iraq, pointedly, was not. If Clinton really thought Iraq’s alleged possession of those weapons justified her support for invading the country, then she was effectively saying the United States somehow has the right to invade dozens of other countries as well.

Similarly, even if Iraq had been one of those 30 countries, and remember, it was not, the threat of massive retaliation by Iraq’s neighbors and U.S. forces permanently stationed in the region provided a more than sufficient deterrent to Iraq using the weapons beyond its borders. A costly invasion and extended occupation were completely unnecessary.

Finally, the subsequent war and the rise of sectarianism, terrorism, Islamist extremism, and the other negative consequences of the invasion would have been just as bad even if the rationale weren’t bogus. American casualties could have actually been much higher, since WMDs would have likely been used against invading U.S. forces.

But here’s the kicker: Clinton stood by the war even after these claims were definitively debunked.

Even many months after the Bush administration itself acknowledged that Iraq had neither WMDs nor ties to Al Qaeda, Clinton declared in a speech at George Washington University that her support for the authorization was still “the right vote” and one that “I stand by.” Similarly, in an interview on Larry King Live in April 2004, when asked about her vote despite the absence of WMDs or Al Qaeda ties, she acknowledged, “I don’t regret giving the president authority.”

No Excuses

The 2016 Democratic presidential campaign is coming down to a race between Hillary Clinton, who supported the Bush Doctrine and its call for invading countries that are no threat to us regardless of the consequences, and Bernie Sanders, who supported the broad consensus of Middle East scholars and others familiar with the region who recognized that such an invasion would be disastrous.

There’s no question that the United States is long overdue to elect a woman head of state. But electing Hillary Clinton, or anyone else who supported the invasion of Iraq, would be sending a dangerous message that reckless global militarism needn’t prevent someone from becoming president, even as the nominee of the more liberal of the two major parties.

It also raises this ominous scenario: If Clinton were elected president despite having voted to give President Bush the authority, based on false pretenses, to launch a war of aggression, in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and common sense, what would stop her from demanding that Congress give her the same authority?

Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. [This story appeared originally at http://fpif.org/five-lamest-excuses-hillary-clintons-vote-invade-iraq/ ]



19 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Iraq War Albatross

  1. Holdbar
    January 30, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Hillary failed to conduct due diligence prior to her Iraq War vote:

    1) Hillary didn’t bother reading the National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting for war.

    2) Hillary didn’t bother asking Senator Bob Graham (D), Chair of the Senate Intel Committee, why he was voting against Bush’s war in Iraq.

    3) Hillary ignored Ambassador Charles Freeman (ret.) who was informing the public, in the fall of 2002, that Bush and his cabinet appointees meet in January, 2001 (prior to being sworn in as president & eight months prior to 911), and the topic of the meeting was invading Iraq (this was later confirmed by Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, who attended the meeting).

    Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine – Hillary is incapable of learning.

    Did I mention that Hillary hired Dick Cheney’s foreign policy adviser, Victoria Nuland, to be her undersecretary of state.

    • Bill Clinton
      January 30, 2016 at 1:03 pm

      And 9/11 justified the invasion of Iraq, even though Iraqi had nothing to do with the attack. Clinton failed due diligence here, and don’t forget Libya and her War there as well.

      She is captive to the military industrial complex.

      • Mike Lamb
        January 31, 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Judgment? Iraq 2002, private email server for Government business circa 2009, Libya circa 2011, Ukraine 2014 (through former subordinate), taking speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.
        Now that spells “JUDGMENT” to me, but the TOTAL COMMENT contains 4 “CHARACTERS” before the word “judgement,” those being “B,” “A,” “D,” and “SPACE.”
        Hillary Clinton “Judgment” is all too often “BAD JUDGMENT.”

    • Bart
      January 30, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      Speaking of Ms Nuland, her activities in Ukraine lead one to believe that she also has a sizable portfolio at Defense.

      • Roberto
        January 30, 2016 at 11:10 pm

        Hillary is a neocon.

  2. Zachary Smith
    January 30, 2016 at 11:56 am

    Mr. Zunes has made a convincing argument about how Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President based on a single one of her horrible positions and subsequent votes. Likewise, in a recent sister piece on this candidate – “Hillary Clinton’s Own Petard” – Bart Gruzalski demonstrated to me that even if the woman had not behaved as she did with the Iraq War vote she’d still be not fit to take over the executive branch of the US government.

    But you know what? Even if many others – even a majority – become convinced by these and similar arguments, the woman may still become the candidate and the President.

    Primary election rigging in the coming weeks and months is all but assured if American voters and candidates don’t take steps to prevent it now. Evidence that US voting systems are wide open to fraud and manipulation should be taken seriously in light of the unprecedented high-stakes elections we’re facing.


    Every single requirement for ‘vote flipping’ is already in place. All you need is money, and an ability to spend it competently. Given Hillary’s track record, I wouldn’t expect the “competence” to come from her. But recall that she has a great many supporters who are billionairse, and any of them could purchase the necessary competence.

    If you think Big Media ignores Bernie Sanders, take a look at their coverage of the actual and potential fraud in electronic voting. It is very seldom that a person sees any news about this anywhere except on the fringe sites.

    We may yet have Hillary by a landslide when the vote totals demonstrate the Sanders candidacy was a flash-in-the-pan and primary voters finally came to their senses.

    • John
      January 30, 2016 at 2:48 pm

      And then there is also the above-board rigging of superdelegates. She will be playing dirty on all fronts.

  3. Mack Iavelli The Knife
    January 30, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    The illegal, international war crime, invasion of Iraq was not policy blunder for george w bullshit and dick chicanery; they achieved just what they wanted: the plundering of trillions of u.s. dollars. Not blunder, plunder. As for Hillary Clinton, when it comes down to the two choices, there will be no other choice; unless you would prefer yet another president bush, or president cruz.

    • Benito Moose
      January 30, 2016 at 2:04 pm

      Not blunder, plunder.

  4. Bill Bodden
    January 30, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    This time around, Clinton supporters have been hoping that enough Democratic voters — the overwhelming majority of whom opposed the war — will forget about her strong endorsement of the Bush administration’s most disastrous foreign policy.

    Unfortunately, for some Clinton supporters the Iraq War and other Clinton-related disasters are unknown or irrelevant. Meryl Streep, who I thought would have had more sense, endorsed Clinton at a forum for women. Her reasoning? Streep heard three women give Clinton credit for saving their lives. Their stories may have been true and valid, but what about the millions of women who lost their lives or had them destroyed by injury or displacement from policies supported or promoted by Clinton from the time she was co-president in the White House through secretary of state? The Balkans. Sanctions on Iraq. War on Iraq. Honduras. Libya. Syria.

    • Bill Bodden
      January 30, 2016 at 9:09 pm

      Add Gaza and Bahrain to that list

  5. tim zorach
    January 30, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Ms. Clinton also has also been a blind supporter of Israel. For all practical purposes she is a Zionist at heart and never has acknowledged the horrific treatment of Palestinians by Israel. Her unfettered favoritism for Israel would continue to be a festering sore in the Arab world.

    • tjoe
      February 3, 2016 at 7:23 am

      “Her unfettered favoritism for Israel would continue to be a festering sore in the Arab world.”

      It will be in the US too when we are neck deep in Israel’s next war.

  6. mike
    January 30, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    She simply wanted to go to war fulfilling the request of her financial backers!

  7. Moe
    January 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Hillary lost the nomination to Obama in 2008 due to her vote for the Iraq War. Her judgement hadn’t improved in time to deal with Libya either. Making politically expedient decisions when you know people will die as a consequence doesn’t make you tough, it makes you amoral.

    January 31, 2016 at 10:56 am
  9. ttshasta
    January 31, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Once again I will mention that the Iraq war vote followed the Amerithrax attacks.
    Dr Ivans never confessed, handwriting did not match, and the FBI never charged him.
    One of the anthrax mailings was highly atomized / weaponized – made in a lab, not a garage.
    The Anthrax was US made Ames strain.

    The FBI head agent in charge of the anthrax investigation – Richard Lambert – has filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t: (2014/15)

    WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704541004575011421223515284


    The Bush vs Gore coup d’etat, 911, Amerithrax attacks, Patriot Act, and war votes mark the end of democracy, the bankrupting of the USA, and the wholesale destruction of the middle East.. THAT should be the crux of “Iraq War vote” articles.

  10. Drew Hunkins
    January 31, 2016 at 5:43 pm

    The problem is that no matter how much progressive-populists demonstrate how obsequious Hillary is to Wall Street and the Fortune 500, or how often and with iron-clad evidence they point out that Hillary’s a warmongering hawk, the 35 to 65 year old women Democrats simply will not consider voting for Bernie Sanders, the much better choice by a country mile.

    This is a serious problem; Hillary’s basically winning right now because of the dead-end of identity politics, and we saw where that got us in 2008/12 with Obama. The 35 to 65 year old Democratic women demo needs to recognize that Sanders is by far the best option right now. Of course he’s not perfect, but he’s much, much better than Hillary.

    I’m hoping once Sanders’ message gains more traction, the 35 to 65 year old women Democrats (a usually astute voting bloc) will see beyond the identity politics and swing Sanders way.

    We cannot have gonadal politics win out over the searing class analysis Bernie brings to the table.

  11. Call A Spade
    February 4, 2016 at 6:38 am

    That is because of the 95% rule. Which is 95% of people are idiots and the US has a strong idiot population.

Comments are closed.