This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Hillary Clinton probably "won" the second Democratic presidential debate Sunday night. She uttered no damaging gaffes that might have imperiled her '08 front-runner status. She sounded crisp and concise (even while uttering semi-truths). She even took charge of the debate itself, in the closing moments, when she told CNN host Wolf Blitzer that his questions about hypothetical future crises were essentially irresponsible.
But, on certain substantive matters, some of her remarks still didn't pass the smell test. She is vulnerable to the accusation that she failed to perform due diligence before she voted in 2002 to give President Bush the option to invade Iraq. During that fateful autumn, she didn't bother to read the latest National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document available to all senators, which clearly indicated that Bush's case against Saddam Hussein was far from a slam dunk.
During the debate, Clinton was asked whether she regretted her failure to read that 90-page document. She replied: "I was thoroughly briefed; I knew all the arguments. I knew all of what the Department of Defense, the CIA, and the State Department were all saying. I sought out dissenting opinions." She then tried to pivot, blaming the war on Bush and on Iraqis "who have failed to take advantage" of the "opportunity" to build a democracy.
But if she indeed "knew all the arguments," then why did she endorse the drumbeat for war - at a time when there was abundant expert evidence that the White House was hyping its case?
Some antiwar liberal primary voters might well be asking themselves that question today. But she has an answer for that as well. Sort of.
She contended Sunday (reprising one of her old lines) that she actually didn't endorse a war when she voted "yes" back in 2002. Rather, she insisted that she voted "yes" on the expectation that Bush would first pursue further diplomatic options - such as building more international support for the idea of sending U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. But she said that Bush snookered her by moving swiftly to the war option.
But her argument contained a key flaw. The '02 war resolution did not contain any language that would have compelled Bush to pursue further diplomatic options.
So whatever Clinton might have thought she was endorsing (especially in hindsight) was not covered in the actual text. Indeed, when she had an opportunity, in 2002, to truly endorse diplomatic language, she voted "no."
Fortunately for Clinton, however, none of her top rivals Sunday pointed out these flaws in her arguments.
John Edwards did try to skewer Clinton for another war vote. Last month, she and Barack Obama decided - for the first time - to oppose an Iraq war-funding bill. Since Edwards couldn't attack them for their actual votes (because he agrees with them), he opted to attack them for the way they cast their votes. They did so very quietly, at the eleventh hour. In Edwards' view, their behavior demonstrated that they don't have the guts to lead; or, as he put it, "it's the difference between leading and following."
Obama quickly noted that, while Edwards as a senator was voting "yes" on the war in 2002, he, Obama, was already speaking out against a U.S. invasion. "I opposed this war from the start. So you were about 4 1/2 years late on this issue."
Anyway, Clinton's Iraq war record, and her fact-challenged responses, probably won't hurt her much, except among the most dedicated antiwar liberal fact-checkers. I sensed this late in the debate, when regular folks in the audience were invited to pose questions.
Here's a sampling: Why doesn't my son, who's serving Iraq, have the right to go to the VA hospital of his choosing? What's the best way that I can save for my kids' college education? How could we best handle the humanitarian crisis in Darfur?
In other words, most voters probably agree with Clinton's argument that it's a waste of time to "argue the past." They're far more focused on the future. If her rivals are going to take her down, they won't do it by refighting the events, and miscalculations, of 2002.