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. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
That passage is from Hillary Clinton's floor speech in favor of S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. It is remarkable that a congressional resolution entitled "A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," is justified on the grounds that it will improve diplomatic efforts. What part of "Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," wasn't clear in the title? The text of the legislation, which isn't very long, also states "[t]he President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." To argue that this legislation serves to further diplomacy, rather than to authorize the use of force no matter the outcome of diplomatic efforts and no matter the seriousness with which such efforts were engaged, is to cling to an incontrovertibly false argument. Arguing that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq authorized the use of military force against Iraq is as straightforward as an argument can be.
The self-delusion and / or lying that warps the meaning of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq as somehow not authorizing the use of military force against Iraq is not even what bothers me the most about this passage. Even beyond denying the fundamental principles of logic, what really bothers me is the argument that if Democrats do not vote for this bill in sufficient numbers, then they will be the ones sabotaging diplomacy. In fact, as the opening sentence of the second paragraph makes clear, Clinton offers this as the primary justification for her vote. Clinton's argument is that if large numbers of Democrats offer bipartisan support to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, then war is less likely. Not only is this an exhortation to her fellow Democrats to be more hawkish, but this actually blames those who opposed the war for causing the war because they didn't back diplomatic efforts strongly enough.
This, in a nutshell, is Washington bipartisanship. Deny the fundamental principles of logic by claiming that a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq did not authorize the use of military force in Iraq. Urge your fellow Democrats to move to the right. Top it off by placing the blame for the start of the war on those who opposed the war. It an extreme level of mendacity that twice denies both logic and common sense. What has been the source of this mendacity? Why, of course, it is identity politics:
McAuliffe declared that under no circumstances would she take back her vote. "A woman?" he almost yelled. "Can you imagine?"
In a politics without logic, the only thing left is identity and power. For reasons steeped in identity politics, Hillary Clinton has been fundamentally dishonest about Iraq with Democrats during virtually this entire campaign, both by repeatedly claiming that she didn't vote for the war in late 2002 and then claiming for a long time that she would end the war even though her Iraq plans will leave thousands, even tens of thousands, of troops in Iraq. It took six months of pressure from the residual forces campaign for her to even start admitting that she would remove most, but not all troops. Even then, however, it seemingly has not resonated much with the Democratic electorate, because identity is all that matters in the electorate, too. Clinton still leads nationwide.
STATE BLOGS
