If she were setting the policies what would they look like?
In particular the key claim that something genocidal was about to unfold was entirely unfounded according to a lengthy review of the Libya intervention at the London Review of Books which noted that ‘in retaking the towns that the uprising had briefly wrested from the government’s control Gaddafi’s forces had committed no massacres at all; the fighting had been bitter and bloody but there had been nothing remotely resembling the slaughter at Srebrenica let alone in Rwanda’.
Given that Libya had normalized relations with the West in 2003/2004 – renouncing its former international outlaw role – including an active WMD program – it was strikingly counterproductive to turn on Gaddafi like that if you want to coax other ‘rogue states’ into the community of nations.
So more than a dozen years after the Iraq War vote—which she’s finally semi-apologized for—the vote itself is less important than the broader framework in which she cast it – how she explained herself and how she’s acted since.
What really matters about her decision back then is what it tells about how she’d try to shape the future.
With Rand Paul all but disappearing from sight the GOP is now unified in its commitment to war war war.
They will fight fire with gasoline until the last oil well runs dry.
If there’s going to be any learning from past mistakes – any chance at all – it’s entirely up to the Democrats.
So what are the chances with Hillary?
Not very good I’d argue.
But they can only improve by better understanding past mistakes.
So let’s begin with her Iraq War vote and how she justified it at the time.
Here are the main problems that jump out from it: