Taking to the trail after the Petraeus testimony, Obama seized the opportunity to turn up the heat on the Democratic front runner. “Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war,” he told supporters in Iowa. “The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the president. Despite—or perhaps because of—how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the president at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the president the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”
It was not lost on Obama’s audience at Ashford University—in the town of Clinton, of all places—whom he meant to single out as a politician who failed to read the Iraq intelligence for herself: Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s aides believe her vote for the war offers a possible chink in the formidable Clinton armor. They eagerly point out that she failed to read the full and classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Unlike the public version of that report, the full NIE included multiple caveats and disclaimers that cast doubt on key assertions by the White House.
And they draw attention to one key passage of Clinton’s Senate speech on the authorization of the war. “In the four years since the inspectors left,” Clinton stated in 2002, “intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.”
In fact there was ample analysis from intelligence officials and nuclear experts that flatly opposed the notion that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear program. Moreover, the evidence of Saddam’s “aid” to Al Qaeda members was so unreliable that many intelligence officials considered it a joke.
Clinton suggested that the future was obvious. “It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons,” she continued in the 2002 speech. “Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when and with whom?” Look for the Obama forces to be reading those choice passages back to New York’s junior senator in the days and weeks to come.
The Iraq debate is a more substantive slugfest than the earlier foreign-policy skirmish over Obama’s approach to Pakistan (he remarked that he would attack Al Qaeda targets unilaterally if necessary) or his approach to diplomacy with hostile leaders (he would explore talks early in his presidency). But it is also a backward-looking dispute. In parsing out what Obama and Clinton would do in Iraq going forward, even Obama’s aides accept there isn’t much difference between the two candidates.
Obama declared Wednesday that he would bring the troops home at a rate of one or two brigades a month, which would mean an end to the presence of combat forces by the end of 2008. That may make for better headlines than the more measured speech Clinton gave on Iraq in July in Des Moines, Iowa. “As president,” she said, “I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting within the first 60 days of my administration. We should do this as quickly as we can, consistent with preserving our security and protecting our troops. I have been long worried that the Pentagon is not adequately planning for the withdrawal of our troops because the White House does not want them to plan for withdrawal.”
A promise of planning won’t do much to stir up Democratic voters. But it is a more realistic approach to the problems facing any would-be president.
On one point, both candidates agree: it’s time for the United Nations to play a leading role in finding a political solution for Iraq. Obama proposed what he called “a constitutional convention” for Iraq, but only if the Iraqis themselves can reach “a new accord on national reconciliation.” Clinton also wants to see a U.N.-led process, but hers would be modeled on the Balkans peace plan. She would back a “high-level U.N. representative—similar to those appointed in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo—to help broker peace among the parties in Iraq.”
Why the sharper attacks on Clinton now? The Obama campaign would never admit any link to politics—perish the thought!—but recent polls suggest the race is trending in Clinton’s direction in some of the key early states. A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows Clinton leading in Iowa by 5 points over John Edwards and 9 points over Obama. In New Hampshire, Clinton has opened up a commanding 19-point lead over both Obama and Edwards.
Obama may want to bring the troops home, but, given those numbers, he’s likely to be rolling tanks on Clinton all fall.
