Hillary Clintons remarks made on March 6, 2003 to CodePink two weeks before the Iraq War began contradict all of her claims made in her first campaign stop in Iowa this weekend.
My transcription of Ms. Clintons remarks:
I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of of the women and children of Iraq. There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harms way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
If he was serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming coming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the Samoud missiles, but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. And I just respectfully disagree about what the proximate cause of any action that may be taken is.
Now I also believe that for now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children. And it is a it is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.
Now, I do think that there are continuing discussions ongoing that I hope can make some further progress building on the success of the missile destruction program. But that has been the first real compliance, and it was only brought about when the inspectors discovered the missiles they were not revealed that their length was longer than what had been prescribed [sic] under the resolutions ending the Gulf War.
And the very difficult question for all of us is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment if not an obsession with weapons of mass destruction. And I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didnt believe should be in any way a part this decision.
And it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and account for his chemical and biological storehouses, but that if we had a much broader alliance and coalition.
But we are in a very difficult position right now. And so I would love to agree with you, but I cant based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.
In response to a question from an audience member:
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein. I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States leadership.
And Im talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council Resolution to save the the Kosavar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States. And we had to do it alone.
It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not.
Im happy that in the face of such horrible suffering we did act. And so I see it somewhat differently, if youll forgive me, from my experience and perspective.
Im agreeing with you a hundred percent that even though I am willing to take a very difficult step for me to say we have to disarm this man. That position in no way supports the disastrous economic policies that this administration is pursuing. In fact I think that this is the height of irresponsibility.
And it would be far preferable to be more patient and more thoughtful and more willing to try to engender support with respect to Iraq. That is a decision that has to be made in the world community.
Here at home this administration is bankrupting our economy, forcing us to make the worst kinds of false choices between national and homeland security, which they dont fund. And between security and everything else, which they dont want to fund.
So you have me a hundred percent on that. And it is absolutely wrong it is wrong that for the first time in American history we have a President who is talking about leading this country to war and wanting to cut taxes at the same time.
That is the height of cruel, arrogant irresponsibility.
Now compare her comments with those reported by her fans at the New York Times:
Clinton Calls on Bush to Extricate U.S. From Iraq
January 28, 2007
By PATRICK HEALY
DAVENPORT, Iowa, Jan. 28 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called today for President Bush to extricate our country from Iraq by the time he leaves office in 2009, and she also said she knew enough about evil and bad men to protect the country from its enemies
One person in the audience pressed Mrs. Clinton on her vote authorizing military action in Iraq in 2002, saying she allowed the president to go to war, and asked for specific steps she would take to end the war. She replied by selectively quoting from her speech in 2002 about her vote, saying it was not cast for pre-emptive war, but rather as leverage for the president to work diplomatic channels. (She did not mention that she also said at the time that she cast her vote "with conviction.")
Mrs. Clinton also took issue with President Bushs recent statements that he did not expect to have the troops out of Iraq by the time he leaves office.
I think its the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it this was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office, the senator said this morning
Hillary Clinton is a liar.
(And an idiot for talking to CodePink as if they are a legitimate organization.)