"Hillary Clinton Voted To Send Our Troops To War"

From a radio ad airing throughout Ohio on behalf of Barack Obama:

I'm Tony McPeak. As a combat pilot and head of the Air Force during Desert Storm lives depended on the judgments I made. And judgment is what we need from our next Commander in Chief. Barack Obama. opposed the Iraq War from the start. HC voted to send our troops to war, without reading a key intelligence report that raised serious questions about Iraq... [etc]

He's referring, of course, to the National Intelligence Estimate, which Obama raised by point of contrast in his stump speech yesterday to former Sen. Bob Graham, the then chairman of the intelligence committee who both read the NIE and used it as a pretext to vote against the use of force resolution. Clinton has said that she was briefed on the contents of the report but did not find it necessary to page through the whole classified little bugger itself.

I'm efforting the audio and will post shortly.

Comments

What's funny was that HIllary Clinton cast her 2002 Iraq War vote "with conviction" despite not reading the intelligence.

But....she hedges with her 2008 Obama Muslim Smear Vote on Go minutes, saying that he not a muslim "as far as she knows."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Taking_Obama_at_his_word.html

Wouldn't it be nice if she demanded the same level of evidence for Iraq WMD's as she did for Barack Obama's religion?

Posted by RKA | March 3, 2008 8:53 AM

Sen. Graham did not use the NIE report as a "pretext" for opposing the resolution. He used it as a "reason."

Posted by NIE Guy | March 3, 2008 8:59 AM

How can you be ready on "Day One" if you don't even read important information before sending soldiers off to war?

Posted by Jen | March 3, 2008 9:01 AM

How can you be ready on "Day One" if you don't even read important information before sending soldiers off to war?

Posted by Jen | March 3, 2008 9:02 AM

See, this wasn't supposed to be a problem for her because she was supposed to win on Super Tuesday and then ramp up her efforts against John McCain, where it would have been a non-issue.

But what we're seeing is this - Clinton has brought out the "kitchen sink" with her 3AM ad, her denial of support of NAFTA, her "as far as I know," Obama isn't a Muslim, the picture on Drudge, etc.

So because she's gone negative, people want to see Obama push back, to know that he's tough. And it's finally given Obama the ability to hit her with this stuff. Which aren't negative or misleading arguments but rather plainly spoken truths. Hillary did publicly support NAFTA a number of times. Hillary did fail to read the NIE report. Hillary did promise a windfall of jobs to Western New York, an area that lost jobs. She's falling into the trap that almost all Senators fall into when they run for President - a record that is too long and contradictory.

Posted by Craig | March 3, 2008 9:02 AM

i am shocked--SHOCKED!--that's there no post here yet from Tim K or someone explaining why this Obama commercial is sexist.

...wait for it...

Posted by rob! | March 3, 2008 9:02 AM

Speaking of Graham, what's his status right now? Is he a VP possibility for Obama?

Posted by Jim W | March 3, 2008 9:18 AM

I have wondered for the longest time when this fact would come to receive big media attention. This failure to read the report herself, in my opinion, is the clearest example that she is no manager (and clearly has not demonstrated that she's ready to lead on Day One). If this became widely known, it would deliver a death blow to her campaign.

Posted by Howard B. | March 3, 2008 9:24 AM

"Pretext"? I hope that you were typing too fast. The NIE accurately reflected the state of our intelligence. Iraq had no operational ties to Al Qaeda and was several years away from developing a nuclear weapon. It appeared to have remaining chemical and biological weapons caches (as it had failed to account for stockpiles that we knew Saddam had acquired), but had not used those weapons in years and there was no reason to believe that it was on the verge of doing so again.

It is not a pretext to read that intelligence and concldue that (i) Iraq posed no near-term threat, (ii) Saddam was deterrable, and (iii) in light of the Al Qaeda threat, a war against Iraq would actually set back our national interest.

I don't know Bob Graham's thinking, but a fair number of people (though not enough) came to that conclusion. See for example, Walt and Mearsheimer, An Unnecessary War, Foreign Policy (Jan/Feb 2003), linked below. Or just go re-read Obama's speech.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/walt.htm

Posted by Chunche | March 3, 2008 9:33 AM

This is the reason I decided not to vote for Clinton way back when. Two sons honorably served in Iraq for a total of 2.5 years,leaving families whose lives revolved around hearing whether they were alive that day. Yet she couldn't take the time to read the NIE report. That's all their lives are worth? How did she chose to spend the time when she could have read the report? Is this judgement?

zacher

Posted by zacher | March 3, 2008 9:34 AM

Yet she couldn't take the time to read the NIE report. That's all their lives are worth? How did she chose to spend the time when she could have read the report? Is this judgement?

The reason she didn't bother to read it is because her mind was already made up how to vote. It was based on political calculations, not on the substance of the issue.

Posted by Jim W | March 3, 2008 9:50 AM

"efforting"?

WTF linguistic abortion is that? Don't ever use that again, please.

Posted by Jon H | March 3, 2008 10:01 AM

She didn't read the NIE because she was too busy fighting. She's a fighter. She'll fight for us. Fight. Fight. Fight. If you don't believe her, she'll kick your ass. When they gave her the NIE she was probably in the octagon wrestling Sen. John Warner in a no-holds barred cage match.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 3, 2008 10:15 AM

Howard B and Jim W, et al above make excellent points: She is indeed no manager - witness her campaign miscues all along - and her mind was made up...by political expediency.

A leader stands apart, when necessary, from the conventional wisdom, which is sometimes disastrously wrong.

Obama's campaign has been brilliant in hammering that "judgment" question home for months now. It's his best argument against her, because she has no effective response.

And if she can't manage her dunkin' donuts and other catering expenses, how the heck is she going to manage the economy?

Pass on HRC, we've had enough political shrewdness in our lifetimes...look what it got us? Instead of 8 progressive years under Gore, we got shotgun-in-the-face yeehaw diplomacy. As a nation, we need a break.

And we need someone who is willing to read first, then ask questions, then make a decision.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 3, 2008 10:19 AM

Sen. Graham has said that he voted against the Iraq war authorization because he found no justification for preventive attack in all the available intelligence (to which he had absolute access, as chair of the intelligence committee), and because there were other groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which posed far greater imminent threats to the United States than Iraq did. He was so troubled by the administration's abuse of intelligence, in fact, that it was a major reason he decided to run for president in 2004.

Hillary Clinton voted for the authorization, partly because she wanted to look "tough" as a future candidate for president, and partly because the Clintons have an affinity for absolute power -- but she lies about it now, saying she thought she was voting for inspections.

Posted by TKD | March 3, 2008 10:47 AM

Obama's logic is that he had "superior judgement" over all global intelligence agencies, and most of Congress because he gave an antiwar speech at a Jesse Jackson event.

He gave his speech to succor favor of a ring of radical chic left hangovers from the 60s that happened to have clout and money an ambitious wannabe Senator wanted to tap into. Bettylu Saltzman, Penny Pritzger, Newton Minow, former terrorists Ayer&Bernadette, former SDS member and Jesse Jackson "Not in My Name" event organizer Marilyn Katz.

Also joing Obama's "Superior Judgment" opposing "dumb Iraq War" with near-identical speeches were Mayor "Red Ken" Livingstone of London, Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda, Cynthia McKinney, Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein himself, all Muslim groups in Europe, Barbara Boxer, heads of most Arab governments, Jacques de Villepin & Chirac after the bribes, UN officials after their bribes. Not to forget wild opposition by Indonesian Muslim groups, the predictable Lefty celebrities, and the "same-old" crowd of the Jewish Left.

In short, Obama simply joined with "The Usual Suspects" - he did not show any great genius. Sometimes, even Leftys can beat the odds that all the world's intelligence agencies were right unless Saddam was playing an insane suicidal bluff - and that a President and some very experienced hands would be so seduced by arrogance and ideology that they turned a brillian military victory into a mismanaged Occupation fiasco.

Sorry, but Obama and his like-minded crowd have not displayed "superior judgment" over the years. If they had, the Soviet Union would still be flourishing, the Muslim world would be wiping their asses with toilet paper, and Babs Boxer would not be a medalist every year for Hill Staffer's poll on "Dumbest Senator".

Posted by chris ford | March 3, 2008 1:30 PM

Heads up-BHO also said the same thing about Sen Rockerfeller, except-oops, he was wrong. Sen Rockerfeller read the NIE and voted FOR THE WAR RESOLUTION. He even made a speech outlining his reasons for his vote.

What is surprising is the Marc makes no mention of this in his article

Posted by Kate | March 3, 2008 1:52 PM

Hillary says 25 retired generals and admirals trust her to be commander-in-chief. That sounds like a lot of brass, however, they’re a miniscule bunch. And, what about the jobs, jobs, jobs, Hillary talks about? The reason Hillary Clinton answers a landline in her infamous Texas ad, is because neither Hillary, nor Bill Clinton grasp the intricacies of cell phones. I don’t know the exact number of world leaders who are technological illiterates, but the Clintons would make two more. Which begs the question, in today’s high-tech arena, how do such dinosaurs create gainful employment? Another glaring error that Hillary & Bill make time and again: both believe that not getting caught in a lie, is the same thing as telling the truth. Now Hillary says she was briefed on the contents of the (NIE) report but did not find it necessary to page through the whole classified little bugger. Don’t be like that girl: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 3, 2008 3:20 PM

Hilarious discussion between Hillary and obama. Must watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7150u9sfCo

Posted by smita | March 6, 2008 1:31 PM

Hilarious discussion between Hillary and obama. Must watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7150u9sfCo

Posted by smita | March 6, 2008 1:32 PM