Recommendation to Hillary Clinton on how to talk about her Iraq vote

PREFACE: Go here for Hillary Clinton's actual approach to talking about her Senate vote for Public Law 107-243. Go here for criticism of Clinton's 'evolved' position on her Senate vote for the 2002 AUMF.

---

from: [Eric LC]
to: info@hillaryclinton.com
date: Tue, May 5, 2015 at 12:40 PM
subject: Recommendation: How to talk about your Iraq vote

Mrs. Clinton,

Your critics and competitors for the Democratic nomination for President hold against you, the same as they did in 2008, your Senate vote for the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq (Public Law 107-243).

However, if the partisan politics are set aside, a focused reading of the primary sources for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) shows that your support of the US-led enforcement of Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441) in order to "bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235) was well founded.

My recommendation for how to talk about your Iraq vote is to set the record straight on the grounds for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

To help in that, my explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom:
https://operationiraqifreedomfaq.blogspot.com/

My explanation is drawn from the primary sources of the mission such as the Gulf War ceasefire UN Security Council resolutions that set the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441), the US law and policy that enforced the UNSCRs, the conditions and precedents that set the stage for OIF, and the determinative fact findings that triggered the decision for OIF.

The law and policy, fact basis of OIF is straightforward. The Security Council resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire mandated the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441). Since 1990-1991, starting with UNSCR 660 and then Public Law 102-1, the US president enforced Iraq's compliance with the UNSC resolutions under mandate of US law and policy. From 1990 to 2003, Saddam's intransigent noncompliance with the spectrum of UN mandates, most notably the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688, progressed through the HW Bush, Clinton (your husband), and Bush administrations. At the decision point for OIF in Saddam's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441) in 2002-2003, the determinative fact findings show Saddam was evident[ial]ly noncompliant across the board with the UN mandates. In other words, Saddam was in fact in material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire.

The law and policy enforcing the Gulf War ceasefire plainly show the casus belli was always Iraq's material breach of the UNSCR 660-series resolutions.

Although the inaccuracy [predictive imprecision] of the pre-war intelligence [estimates] has been heavily criticized, the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) for disarmament was mandated by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions, not the intelligence. The main element of President Bush's decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was the UNMOVIC Cluster[s] Document finding of "about 100 unresolved disarmament issues" that confirmed Saddam's material breach of UNSCR 687, which was analogous to the UNSCOM Butler Report that was the main element of President Clinton's decision for Operation Desert Fox. Then the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report found a host of disarmament violations that corroborated Saddam's material breach of UNSCR 687. Of course, Saddam's material breach of the non-armament mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire, including the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 and humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688, is undisputed. They were also enforcement triggers.

President Clinton was right to strictly enforce the Gulf War ceasefire despite the opposition of the Security Council members that advocated for Saddam in 1998 and again in 2002-2003. Your husband was right to impress the gravity of Saddam's "clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere" (President Clinton) upon you as a Senator and his successor in the White House. According to the Iraq Survey Group and the Iraqi Perspectives Project that studied captured regime documents, President Clinton's dire warnings about Saddam from 1998-1999 were correct. But for the regime change, Saddam would have rearmed — was in fact already rearming in violation of UNSCR 687 — Saddam was a terrorist and tyrant, and Saddam's peculiar decision-making, ambition, and the nature of his regime were not reconstructed as mandated by the Gulf War ceasefire.

When the the law, policy, and facts underlying Operation Iraqi Freedom are correctly understood, it is clear that your husband and his successor in the White House were right about Saddam. Your critics and competitors for the Democratic nomination for President are wrong now and they were wrong in 2008. You were right to vote for the 2002 AUMF.

The best thing for your candidacy for President, the honor of our Iraq veterans, the good of the nation and the peoples of the world whom rely on stalwart American leadership is to set the record straight on the law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom.