Here’s your link to Sen. Hillary Clinton supporting “with conviction” Bush’s desire to use force against Iraq.
My take is that, ultimately, she is hoist by Bill's petard.
Would Bill have done what W did? Possibly. He had contingency plans drawn up back in 1998, right? And was ready to use them, right?
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
Hillary couldn't have been ignorant of that.
So, there’s only so far she can go toward trying to look like a real liberal on this issue.
That said, here's a link to her complete Senate floor speech of Oct. 10, 2002, supporting the use of force.
One quote:
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. (Emphasis added.)
She then, after her previous schwaffling on unilateral action vs. seeking the U.N. resolution, etc., makes clear after this point, that if push comes to shove, she supports unilateral action after all, in my opinion.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position.
She later claims that’s not what she means:
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.
What’s the difference between pre-emption and an ultimatum that’s designed to push buttons? Not much.
She then says she is comfortable with Bush’s efforts:
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier.
Nice try, Hillary.
I WILL vote Green if you’re nominated. With conviction.
