Hillary Clinton’s defense of her Iraq vote has always been that it was a “vote for diplomacy, not a vote for war”, intended to provide leverage to get inspectors back into Iraq so as to prevent an invasion. She has repeatedly stated that she wouldn’t have voted the the way she did if she knew what she knows now, and she’s even gone on the record as saying that, if she had been president in 2002, she wouldn’t have started the war. This explanation has always strained credulity; she did vote for a bill called “A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” But at least it acknowledged the concerns and thought processes of those of us who got the war right when it counted.
But her latest defense of that vote strays significantly from her previous script, in a really disturbing way. Here are her exact words:
“We knew that psychologically the idea that Osama bin Laden would now be given the top spot so to speak among extremists, would be very hard for Saddam to take and would probably encourage him to do something.”
Wow. Just wow. She voted to invade because she thought Saddam would envy the attention being paid to bin Laden and act out? Like, seriously? Because I’m pretty sure that’s not how politics works. I’m pretty sure that no foreign leader wants to be the chief military target of the U.S. Antagonizing us has its benefits, of course; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez don’t act the way they do for no reason. But “do something”? She actually thinks that Saddam Hussein would have attacked America out of personal envy? Really? I’ve long thought that supporting the war reflects badly on the judgment of the supporter, no matter what their logic was. But if Hillary’s thought process is this illogical, this self-evidently ridiculous, then I wonder about her ability to serve competently as a Senator, much less as President. H/t to Nick Beaudrot.