Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.
The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).
Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."
Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."
Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.
But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.
So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?
The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.
At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).
Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."
Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."
Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.
But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.
So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?
