In an April 27 weblog post, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said at an April 26 debate “that if she'd been president she wouldn't have led the country to war in Iraq,” to which Tapper added, “a war, you may recall, that she voted for.” In fact, the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq for which Clinton and a majority of her congressional colleagues voted gave the president the authority to go to war in Iraq; it was not, as Tapper suggests, a congressional declaration of war or a directive to the president to launch an invasion. Although acknowledging that the vote for the resolution could “lead to war,” Clinton has noted herself that a vote for the resolution was not a “vote[] for” the war. Before her vote, Clinton said that she expected the White House to push for “complete, unlimited inspections” and that she did not view her support for the measure as “a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism.”

During the debate, co-moderator and NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams asked former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) to answer the "[s]ame question" he had asked Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), which was: "[I]f, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it had been the work of Al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" After Edwards answered, Williams told Clinton: "[S]ame question." Clinton responded:

CLINTON: Well, again, having been a senator during 9-11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack, and the impact that it has, far beyond those who are directly affected. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported, or gave material aid, to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found [Osama] bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

Faulting Clinton for omitting in her subsequent press release the statement that “when [President Bush] decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden,” Tapper wrote that in the debate Clinton “claim[ed] that if she'd been president she wouldn't have led the country to war in Iraq -- a war, you may recall, that she voted for.” However, Clinton made clear in her Senate floor statement in October 2002 that she did not intend her vote as a directive to launch a war against Iraq. She also expressed her hope that Bush would allow full inspections to proceed before resorting to war, and that the United States would not engage in “any new doctrine of pre-emption.” Clinton added: “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.” The authorization itself included “support[]” from Congress" for the:

efforts by the President to --

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

As Media Matters for America noted, on the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, Tapper baselessly claimed that an “inherent contradiction” exists between Clinton's statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution and her recent explanation of that vote.

From the April 26 debate broadcast on MSNBC:

WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, same question: God forbid, two simultaneously -- simultaneous attacks tonight, we knew it was Al Qaeda, what would you change about U.S. military stance overseas?

[...]

WILLIAMS: We're out of time, thank you. Senator Clinton, same question.

CLINTON: Well, again, having been a senator during 9-11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack, and the impact that it has far beyond those who are directly affected. I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate. If we are attacked, and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

Now, that doesn't mean we go looking for other fights. You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden, so let's focus on those who have attacked us and do everything we can to destroy them.

WILLIAMS: Out of time, Senator. Thank you.

From Tapper's April 27 post on ABC News' Political Punch weblog:

As pointed out by my pal John Dickerson writing as Slate (LINK), you'll notice, first of all, that the Clinton campaign -- quite misleadingly -- did NOT provide ellipses that would indicate her comments had been edited. That's a bit dishonest.

Now...let's look...What did they edit out?

1) Her sounding less than decisive, as with this sentence chock full o' qualifiers: “If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.”

2) Her praise of President Bush: “You know, I supported President Bush when he went after Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

3) Her claim that if she'd been president she wouldn't have led the country to war in Iraq -- a war, you may recall, that she voted for. “And then when he decided to divert attention to Iraq, it was not a decision that I would have made, had I been president, because we still haven't found bin Laden.”

From Clinton's October 10, 2002, floor statement:

CLINTON: Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war , if possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war . Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community.

Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot.

I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

Finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our Nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.