Hillary's Iraq vote: The rest of the story
In response[to Bernie Sanders], Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.”
In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.
After his capture in Iraq, Saddam Hussein explained to an FBI agent why he didn't just say Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction to avoid a US invasion.
See also this, this, and this.
After his capture in Iraq, Saddam Hussein explained to an FBI agent why he didn't just say Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction to avoid a US invasion.
See also this, this, and this.