This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/hillary-clinton-apology-iraq-sop-masses

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Hillary Clinton's apology for Iraq vote is just a sop to the masses Hillary Clinton's apology for Iraq vote is just a sop to the masses
(about 4 hours later)
Perhaps as many as 150,000 men, women and children have fled Mosul in the past few days as Isis fighters take control of Iraq's second city. All the grit and stoicism invested in rebuilding their lives over the past 10 years has gone for nothing. Elsewhere, the death toll in suicide bombings in the country has been running at around 1,000 a month. Violence has returned to levels not seen since 2007. The whole region is plunged into instability.Perhaps as many as 150,000 men, women and children have fled Mosul in the past few days as Isis fighters take control of Iraq's second city. All the grit and stoicism invested in rebuilding their lives over the past 10 years has gone for nothing. Elsewhere, the death toll in suicide bombings in the country has been running at around 1,000 a month. Violence has returned to levels not seen since 2007. The whole region is plunged into instability.
For her small contribution to triggering this decade of human catastrophe, of terrible loss and suffering, Hillary Clinton has now said sorry.For her small contribution to triggering this decade of human catastrophe, of terrible loss and suffering, Hillary Clinton has now said sorry.
To be precise, in the memoir-cum-manifesto that has just been published, called, appropriately enough, Hard Choices, what she says of the Iraq vote in 2002 is: "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."To be precise, in the memoir-cum-manifesto that has just been published, called, appropriately enough, Hard Choices, what she says of the Iraq vote in 2002 is: "I got it wrong. Plain and simple."
On one level, this is simply a piece of housekeeping, a cushion-plumping moment on the way to a pitch for the presidency in 2016. Her senatorial vote – which might conceivably also have been influenced by presidential ambition – was a mark against her in the contest with Obama in 2008. It was important, but it hardly changed the balance. Move on.On one level, this is simply a piece of housekeeping, a cushion-plumping moment on the way to a pitch for the presidency in 2016. Her senatorial vote – which might conceivably also have been influenced by presidential ambition – was a mark against her in the contest with Obama in 2008. It was important, but it hardly changed the balance. Move on.
But on another, it is one more stride down the long and dusty road of obfuscated political communication, one more example of how the appearance of reaching out is only a sleight of hand.But on another, it is one more stride down the long and dusty road of obfuscated political communication, one more example of how the appearance of reaching out is only a sleight of hand.
Apologising for predecessors' failures has become an easy hit. David Cameron is particularly good at it. He has apologised for the Amritsar massacre, the Mid-Stafford hospital scandal, the Hillsborough cover-up and most memorably and effectively for Bloody Sunday. He does it so gracefully that it is easy to forget that for the state to admit mistakes at all is a very 21st century development. Apologising for predecessors' failures has become an easy hit. David Cameron is particularly good at it. He has apologised for the Amritsar massacre, the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal, the Hillsborough cover-up and most memorably and effectively for Bloody Sunday. He does it so gracefully that it is easy to forget that for the state to admit mistakes at all is a very 21st century development.
It's not saying sorry that marks out Clinton's apology different. It's the fact that she is saying sorry for something for which she bears a degree, small as it is, of culpability. And that her calculation is that by saying sorry, she will not be consigned to the footnotes of Washington history but instead be released, shriven, to continue her career in politics, possibly ascending to its summit.It's not saying sorry that marks out Clinton's apology different. It's the fact that she is saying sorry for something for which she bears a degree, small as it is, of culpability. And that her calculation is that by saying sorry, she will not be consigned to the footnotes of Washington history but instead be released, shriven, to continue her career in politics, possibly ascending to its summit.
But what exactly is she saying sorry for? She acted in good faith, as she says. Well, obviously. Contrary to widespread sentiment, no politician sets out to precipitate disaster (although avoiding it may not always play a large enough part in their calculations). So she is apologising for a misjudgment. Although she is not liable, she is acknowledging her own fallibility.But what exactly is she saying sorry for? She acted in good faith, as she says. Well, obviously. Contrary to widespread sentiment, no politician sets out to precipitate disaster (although avoiding it may not always play a large enough part in their calculations). So she is apologising for a misjudgment. Although she is not liable, she is acknowledging her own fallibility.
The consequences of Iraq are far less terrible for us than for Iraqis, but they are bad enough. It remains an active force in politics. Even on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, David Miliband, whose ambitions partly foundered on his support for the war, reiterated that he wouldn't vote for it now. It underlies the real purpose of the interminable Chilcot process, which is to force Tony Blair to admit he was wrong. There is an appetite for revenge, a longing to escape at least from the moral consequences of a disastrous error by finding someone to blame. It's a basic human instinct, a more elevated version of shouting at the driver of the car you've just smashed into.The consequences of Iraq are far less terrible for us than for Iraqis, but they are bad enough. It remains an active force in politics. Even on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, David Miliband, whose ambitions partly foundered on his support for the war, reiterated that he wouldn't vote for it now. It underlies the real purpose of the interminable Chilcot process, which is to force Tony Blair to admit he was wrong. There is an appetite for revenge, a longing to escape at least from the moral consequences of a disastrous error by finding someone to blame. It's a basic human instinct, a more elevated version of shouting at the driver of the car you've just smashed into.
It's the Iraq experience that began the process of transforming the ordinary human appetite for disrespecting politicians into an almost unrestrained desire to give them a good kicking, which shot into overdrive after the expenses scandal. We are no longer prepared to wait until an election to kick MPs out of the Commons. We want to make them grovel.It's the Iraq experience that began the process of transforming the ordinary human appetite for disrespecting politicians into an almost unrestrained desire to give them a good kicking, which shot into overdrive after the expenses scandal. We are no longer prepared to wait until an election to kick MPs out of the Commons. We want to make them grovel.
And then what? Once, politicians only apologised for a misjudgment of national consequence – like the invasion of the Falklands – and the apology led directly, unhesitatingly, to resignation. Now, an apology risks becoming a sop, a bit of red meat flung out to assuage the appetite of the mob. And it will be about as meaningful as the anodyne formula of the operator at the customer services centre.And then what? Once, politicians only apologised for a misjudgment of national consequence – like the invasion of the Falklands – and the apology led directly, unhesitatingly, to resignation. Now, an apology risks becoming a sop, a bit of red meat flung out to assuage the appetite of the mob. And it will be about as meaningful as the anodyne formula of the operator at the customer services centre.