Hillary Bombs the Iraq Question

Hillary blew it:

You know, the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then when it came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so we would know what's there.

Hmm...maybe Hillary didn't actually read the title of the resolution she voted for:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

In reality, everyone in Washington knew exactly what they were voting for when they cast their votes in 2002. For Hillary to claim ignorance at this point in time casts significant doubt on her claims that experience is the most important factor in the choice between herself and Obama. Apparently, all of her experience didn't help her to understand the ramifications of the most important vote of her life that resulted in the deaths of 4,000 US troops.

Her answer got worse:

Some people now think that this was a very clear open and shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So, I think I made a reasoned judgment. Unfortunately, the person who actually got to execute the policy did not.

Perhaps Hillary made a mistake when she said Hussein "would not want" to compete for attention with bin Laden. It would seem to make a bit more sense if she felt that he "would want" to compete for attention with bin Laden.

So what point was Hillary actually trying to make? Does she believe that since Saddam Hussein was a megalomaniac that we were justified going to war? Does she believe that because he might have done something to steal the limelight from bin Laden that we were justified in invading Iraq?

Hillary's answer on this question was incomprehensible from a number of angles. One would have assumed that by this point in the campaign that she would have a better story for explaining a vote that is widely viewed by the Democratic base as incomprehensible and indefensible. She confused the Iraq issue significantly for herself and she will be explaining that answer until Super Tuesday. Meanwhile, for the base of the Democratic Party she's reminded all of us why she's not fit to be president.