ABC's Tapper claimed "inherent contradiction" in Clinton's Iraq statements but left out context refuting his claim
SUMMARY: Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an
"inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's statements prior to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq
and her recent
explanation of that vote.
Tapper's report suggested that Clinton had
not advocated further U.N. inspections in Iraq before an invasion, but she
did so in the same 2002 interview from which Tapper quoted.
On the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper baselessly claimed that an "inherent contradiction" exists between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) statements prior to her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and her recent explanation of that vote. Specifically, Tapper juxtaposed Clinton's comment during a September 15, 2002, interview that she could "support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security," with this February 11, 2007, statement: "I gave [President Bush] authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war." In fact, Clinton did specifically argue in favor of inspections during the very interview from which Tapper quoted. Further, in a Senate floor speech before the 2002 vote, Clinton stated explicitly 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."
Tapper asserted that Clinton has contradicted herself on Iraq during a segment comparing the "campaign styles" of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). From Tapper's report, which appeared on the February 12 edition of ABC's Nightline:
TAPPER: Clinton assails the war she voted for to appeal to anti-war liberals.
CLINTON: It is, without a doubt, one of the most painful challenges that we have faced in our country because of the arrogance and incompetence of our administration in Washington.
TAPPER: While Obama seems more centrist than his record and views would indicate, Clinton is clearly running to the left. This is what she said about her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq one month before she cast it in 2002.
CLINTON: I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our national security.
TAPPER: This is what she tells Democratic audiences today.
CLINTON: I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war.
TAPPER: With that inherent contradiction, Clinton faced some tough questions this weekend.
As presented by Tapper, the quote from the 2002 edition of Meet the Press, without more context, leaves the impression that Clinton unequivocally supported pre-emptive military action against Iraq. That impression is false. Tapper juxtaposed that with the 2007 quote -- "I gave him authority to send inspectors back in to determine the truth. And I said this is not a vote to authorize pre-emptive war" -- pronouncing her statements inherently contradictory.
But as the full Meet the Press interview and her explanation of the vote show, Clinton did voice several assumptions regarding how the Bush administration would proceed, including that full inspections would occur and that the United States would not engage in "any new doctrine of pre-emption." At the beginning of the Meet the Press interview, Clinton made clear that she believed that it was important that inspectors be sent to Iraq and that "it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can." From the interview:
CLINTON: I doubt it. But I do appreciate greatly the president going to the United Nations, making the case, which is really the United Nations' case. And I listened carefully to Secretary [of State Colin] Powell. It's apparent that he's working very hard with the Security Council to come up with a resolution that will set forth an ultimatum, perhaps demand the reintroduction of inspectors and set forth an authorization for force in the event that that doesn't happen.
TIM RUSSERT (host): You would prefer one resolution with those three components?
CLINTON: Well, I'm going to leave that to the secretary and his negotiators. Obviously, that would make it cleaner and faster for everyone, and I hope that's what can come from it. But I know he's working as hard as he can.
[...]
CLINTON: I do think that it's important to continue down the United Nations' track, to do everything possible to get as much international support and buy-in as we can. I think that's important for the ultimate objective, but then we're going to wait to see how this unfolds over the next several of weeks.
Clinton further explained her position in a Senate floor statement on October 10, 2002 -- the day before the Senate approved the Iraq resolution:
CLINTON: Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform. ... However, this course is fraught with danger ... If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.
Clinton advocated that the Bush administration seek a U.N. resolution calling for "complete, unlimited inspections," adding that if Saddam ultimately did not comply with the strict U.N. measure, "we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy":
CLINTON: While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. ... If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated ... If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
Clinton went on to acknowledge that the Iraq resolution was "not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first," but stated that she trusted Bush would gain a U.N. resolution requiring full inspections before proceeding with military action:
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.
Finally -- just as she claimed in the 2007 statement included in the ABC report -- Clinton clarified that her vote in favor of the Iraq resolution did not represent support "for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism":
CLINTON: 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. ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption 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.
MMFA is right. Like HC or not... there is no inconsistency. "supporting action" against Hussein doesn't necessarily imply invading Iraq... Nor, should it. To Bush, it was a green light.
Read the resolution, it absolutely gave authority for Bush to use the armed forces against Iraq. She voted for it, as did many others. Rewriting history is no way to gain credibility. If she just says she was wrong and now admits that, I would have more respect for her. By wiggling out of responsibility, she just looks like a politician.
As opposed to what? She is a politician!
As opposed to a person who takes responsibility for their actions, instead of an obfuscating and spineless politician who plays word games when posturing for votes.
I'm no fan of Hillary's, but no more or less than other politicians who do the exact same thing.
I am for raising the bar and holding them accountable, not lowering it by saying they do it anyway.
Right. There's a huge pile of corpses and they can't be excused for helping make it.
Yeah... true. Painful and stupid. I guess it was, ah, all sort of implied that Bush would be a good boy and not invade? I agree with you. She's an idiot for signing the thing. And, dumber for not owning up to it.
Not only that, but when will politicians learn? This will just follow her and be the subject of much criticism against her. She doesn't need that, I don't fault her for voting for it at the time. Just be honest about it, say you screwed up and own it.
Yes. Honesty is the best policy. I think people have respect for it... something politicians don't seem to understand too well. And, the foundation for criticism against Bill Clinton over the years. One of Obama's pluses right now, I think. He appears to tell it like it is. Whether that's entirely true or not is to be seen.
Tommy - please.
This is ridiculous. READ THE ENTIRE POST!
Many Democrats were very clear about there motivation for voting for the resolution - Hillary included. They gave the President a "bigger stick" - i.e. the THREAT of war - in order to facilitate the resumption of inspections. Hillary's comments prior to the war - some of them in this very post - make that very motive abundantly clear.
Hell, where were you in 2002? Don't you remember this stuff. I certainly do.
They said that while the rest of the world was screaming "No to War!"....guess we just excuse them for allowing a madman to commit mass murder when everyone else knew he was gonna do it. There's been far too many dead children to give any of them a pass on this.
You obviously do not understand what the Sept 16, 2002 Resolution is. The full text is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
It contains this: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
What this means in lay terms is this: If Saddam Hussein does not comply with ALL of the UN Resolutions directed at Iraq, then a state of war exists between the United States and Iraq. This resolution is a veiled declaration of war.
Now, you would like to tell me the the "world's smartest woman" did not know what this was when she was voting for it?
number one, it does not make force automatic. number two, it does not say "all" but "all relevant". we did not go to war to make him account for missing kuwaitis. and number three, bush said our main objective was to disarm saddam. we got the inspectors readmitted and they found nothing. bush forced them out.
You must be one of those delusionals who think there is such a thing as a limited war. This is akin to being slightly dead, a little bit pregnant or somewhat in error. These are all binary questions with black and white answers. They either are or are not.
If you's like yto be a Philadelphia lawyer, I will also point out this declaration of war leaves the amount of force to the discretion of the executive, which is what the constitution demands anyway. And last, but not least, we might point out that Saddam complied with NONE of the UN resolution 100%. These also are binary questions. Either he did or he did not comply. There is no gray area.
You lose.
didn't bush force the inspectors out?
So Hillary should apologize? How about:
"I'm sorry for not realizing that the president is such a colossal, monumental idiot."
You don't need to apologize for assuming basic competence in our leaders. It is the leader without basic competence who needs to do ALL of the apologizing.
Thank you, MMFA...
I have been hearing and reading cherry-picked statements that Hillary Clinton made around the time of the build up and at the start of the Iraq war compared to her more recent statements, and indeed I found some of it inconsistent and troubling. Thank you for posting some of her past statements in the context in which they were made.
The problem is that we live in an age of information (and misinformation) overload... along with short attention spans. Hypothetically, if candidates had the benefit of a captive audience of millions of people for an hour they could easily explain in detail their past staements and refute any insinuations or accusations of inconsistency. Unfortunately, that's not how things work. Unless people take the time to do their own research they are at the mercy of the media and spin meisters. The media don't always explain things either sufficiently or correctly, and the spin meisters are often hired specifically to disseminate misinformation. But life moves fast for most people, with work and family obligations, and how many people actually have the time to research and learn the truth about issues?
Anyway, thanks for this informative piece... I feel a little better about Hillary Clinton.
Well done website. Mission accomplished.
Concerning Hillary's drift on her positions...Molly Ivins said it most eloquently:
"I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton." - Molly Ivins
I agree with you and Molly here
This is unthinkable. I actually agree with Solon about something.
I have always wondered how Hillary Clinton could be acceptable to any true liberal ideologue any more than she could to a conservative ideologue. Her only ideology is power..
Hillary Clinton is like a weather vane. She points in whichever direction the political wind happens to be blowing. She has no morals.
This war crime is now about to enter it's fourth year. All the politicians who started it and perpetuated it are now trying to tell us they were duped or didn't think it would go this far. The world knew back in 2002 that this would happen, yet our politicians thought it far more important to let Bush drop bombs on a powerless country on the far side for the world than fix US health care or end the Federal deficit. And now they try to backpedal and tell us it wasn't their fault. Well, it was.
It's YOUR fault that all those Iraqi children died, Hillary. You empowered Bush, you gave him the votes to fund this, you voted to promote his sleazebag assistants to higher offices. You did this. Don't you dare try to blame someone else.
Wasn't Cynthia McKinney ridiculed for similar remarks during the beginning?
Bill and Hillary have gotten more criticism than any couple in our history. Bill did a horrible thing. He was still a very good president His achievements are in black and white.110M was spent by Congress trying to destroy him. His record wipes out that of Reagan. Yet, conservatives praise Reagan as a great president when there are no numbers to verify it. Bill and Hillary are Good people. They pledged in college to go forth and help less fortunate. Thay have. Bill cared nothing about material wealth. He sincerely wanted to help our nation.
want back up info
google search clarence swinney +
praise clinton--salute clinton--113 things on clinton--remarks on clinton--hillary--democrats create wealth--30 character on clinton--
or just google search for broad range --clarence swinney + clinton
I accept criticism Politcal research historian of Clinton since 1991..
Which is why he gave our jobs away to China, killed 1 million Iraqis with sanctions, and packed our jails with poor people for non-crimes in record numbers. Yeah, Bill Clinton is good people....if you're a rich white guy who wants dirt-cheap foreign labour and new contracts for private prisons.
Unemployment plunged like a rock during all 8 years of Clinton's presidency, and you say he gave our jobs away? 22 million new jobs means nothing? Millions of people out of poverty?
Your other points might be valid, but unfortunately you put the bogus one first.
Oh yeah, the INTERNET made a lot of jobs as everyone wanted a PC to get online and surf porn. Clinton had nothing to do with it. But where are those jobs now? It was Clinton who opened the door to outsourcing.
Also from Hillary:
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change..Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons..which as we know all too well affects American security..this much is undisputed.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal.. But there are problems with this approach as well..In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
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.
Read her entire speech on the floor of the senate and decide for yourself. I believe it is clear that Hillary has abandoned her convictions for political gain.
the u.n. inspectors were in iraq and finding nothing. bush forced them out.
Hillary's stance turns out to have been the correct one. The fact that The administration was knowingly using false information should be taken into consideration when analysing any senators vote at the time. Hillary may not have trusted Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, but I think she did trust Colin Powell. And at the time Collin Powell was doing all he could to avoid a war.
Because of the Media bias against Hillary and Obama it will be tough for them to correct the misconceptions that will be perpetuated about them. The public does not really care what Hillary did or thought at that moment in the past- they are more concerned with her character- is she a lier? One accused, as she has been, the stain will remain a mark on her in many peoples mind whether or not the facts can back up the accusation.
Paul Grant (follower of Basho)http://bringthemhome2.blogspot.com/
Thus we learned to never, ever, ever in a million years trust the word of a Republicon. They'll bamboozle you and leave you holding the bag every time.
Yeah, he was trying to avoid a war by giving bogus speeches and lying to the UN and running around the world looking for backers for a war, while his Department was drawing up the plans to carve up Iraqi industries for the multinationals. Yeah, he tried REAL hard to stop this.
Colin Powell is guilty of helping plot and initiate a war of aggression...crimes against peace, ala Nuremburg.