ABC's Tapper misrepresented Clinton's vote for Iraq resolution and her explanation
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.
This was kind of telling from what Senator Clinton said in 2002
"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."
She and other Democratic Leaders were attempting to be bi-Partisan and United. The Bush Administration ended all hope for that.
The biggest mistake the Democrats made was in giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. They assumed he wouldn't lie about something as important as starting a war.
Good Job Doris. After reeading your comment Hillary looks a Hypocrite. Thanks for pointing this out.
Have a nice day.
No, she is not a hypocrite. She and other Democrats were attempting to put the good of the nation ahead of partisan politics. The GOP and the Bush warcriminals took that and they went off the cliff. I look at that as apparent that Senator Clinton will defend our nation no matter what, despite Karl Rove and his ilk and lies.
Doris, the next President of United States, Obama, also thanks you for pointing out what a huge hypocrite Hillary is for voting for the war. What was Hillary thinking when she voted for the war.
Duncan, tell Barack I said hi. What are you guys doing, just hanging out?
Not unless you fix the voting machine problem (DREs) prior to the election.
Otherwise, you'll be reading in your newspaper all sorts of reasons the pollsters had the Dems at 98%, the undecideds at 1%, and the Repugnants having all lost their voting rights due to felony convictions in the preceeding 18 months - but somehow, those plucky Religious Nutz pulled it out for the Repugnants, sweeping every open seat, the White House, and even the Governorships. Zogby and Gallup will trade accusations about how they missed that undercurrent, and all will be well in this Banana Republic.
How was it for the good of the nation to start threatening a foreign nation with invasion over something that was known to NOT have been there? It was a war on a whim! Any fool could have seen that. People marching in the streets all over the world saying "No to war!" and Hillary and the rest just HAD to vote to let Bush blow up Iraqi children...on a WHIM!
It's just proof that she cares nothing about the lives of other people and will and has voted to KILL women and children. She's a sociopath.
That threat from our Congress worked.
What Bush did later, after the weapons inspectors found no WMD's, didn't work.
It's Bush' fault.
You like finding fault with Democrats, and don't seem capable of understanding that what Bush has done is much worse than anything the Dems have done. They are not equivalent, and your repeated attempts to say that they are equal doesn't make it so!
Did we need inspectors in Iraq? There was NOTHING there. So it was pointless to even vote on it while other things were far more important and have been totally ignored.
And the Dems voted consistently to KEEP US forces in Iraq even when it was found that there was no reason to be there. And they have NOT taken Bush to trial for killing all those people. They are COLLABORATING with the Republicans in a war crime. They are mass murderers.
Don't worry...the troglodytes will figure out a way to blame the Iraq Mistake on her if she gets the nomination. Karl Rove already has the script written for the flying monkeys...unless he deleted it in that big e-mail purge.
When are all these news organizations gonna wise up and fire their reporters who are unable of following basic principles of journalism? Like getting the FACTS RIGHT????
Getting the facts right is only half the battle. Getting those same facts to the public against the tidal wave of the conservative media is another job entirely.
Kerry's "I voted for the money before i voted against it..." line was played endlessly by the GOP machine, never mind that the facts were out there, the flip-flop image was sold to millions of Americans too stoopid to check out what he really said.
Rush, Hannity and all the other monkey-trainers did the editing, and the thinking, for them.
Conservative Tidalwave?!?! since when was the Conservative media allowed to even become a swell. All i see in every newspaper or tv report is liberal agendas and republican cronies. True conservative values are rarely ever seen or heard.
Alright, then. "Neocon" tidal wave. If you object to that you're drinking Kool Aid with your head in the sand and there's no point in discussing it with you further.
Great job here by Media Matters...
This man Tapper is a corporate toady if there ever was one.
He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's more than willing to lie and distort to achieve his ends.
Sadly, the ability to spread lies has become almost mandatory for membership in the Con party.
It's all they've got.
Oops! Hillary herself said she voted to give Bush the authority to GO TO WAR. Here is what she said on December 15, 2003, before the Council on Foreign Relations:
"…When we were attacked on September the 11th and when we lost nearly 3,000 men, women and children, for many Americans, that was also a loss of innocence and a sense of invulnerability. I remain absolutely confident in our eventual victory over the forces of terror, but I also believe that we have our work cut out for us and that what we face is a long-term challenge that not only is external but internal, as we define who we are, what our values should be in the face of this new threat…
"It is essential that we win this war against these borderless terrorists…
"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after."
Tapper, a liberal, was absolutely correct.
The reading comprehension's really coming along, Kevin.
Kevin,
Thanks for the added information, which seems to bolster exactly what Media Matters way saying.
If you're trying to say that your post proves Hillary was somehow an "iron-clad war supporter," I don't see it. I see exactly the opposite.
You moonbats have poor eyesight and/or reading comprehension. Hillary clearly stated that she voted to give Bush authority to use force againsit Saddam. Media Matters is repeating the lie that Hillary merely voted for inspectors to return to Iraq.
In one week MMFA has attacked David Broder and Jack Tapper. These are HUGE liberals. MMFA runs the risk of offending its natual allies in the media and, thus, moving itself further out of the mainstream.
She gave Bush the authority to use force, if necessary, after all other options had been tried.
It was conditional authority. In the letter that Bush sent to Congress after the invasion, he had to claim that he had tried all alternatives, but found them lacking. He lied.
"When are all these news organizations gonna wise up and fire their reporters who are unable of following basic principles of journalism? Like getting the FACTS RIGHT????"
I was just thinking the same thing about all these liberal reporters who are misrepresenting what the "Mission Accomplished" banner was about and who requested it.
Kevin
The "Mission Accomplished" banner was to signal that major combat was over. That was in 2003. Yet almost 3400 troops have died , tell them and their familes that major combat is now over.
Here it comes. James Bond Kevin is going to repeat the Karl Rove talking point that the "troops" made the sign.
The question I've always had about that...Why do Aircraft Carriers have large format 4-color printers on board?
The troops did ask the White House to make the sign for them. Their mission was indeed accomplished. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
Doris, I'm guessing that what he's referring to is the BS thrown out after so much cruticism surfaced about the banner-- "It just meant this one particular part of the mission was accomplished", and that the trrops requested it, which may have some basis in fact, but doesn't justify Bush's dress-up day.
Ok, but Bush is the commander in chief and the White House knew everything going on that day. Even if the troops wanted to use the banner , Karl Rove had to approve.
The Bush Toadies can't get their story straight on this one. According to Ari Fleischer, in a rare moment of candor, "We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."
Of course, Karl insisted that it was the "Navy's Idea", and even got someone in the Pentagon to back up the story. I wonder if these are the same people who gave us the Pat Tillman cover up?
Again, give a moonbat long enough and he'll attack the troops, this time calling the troops liars over the Mission Accomplished banner. The troops requested that banner and the White House provided them with that banner.
You're lying. The troops on the USS Lincoln asked for the banner and the White House made it for them.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
No, JamesBondKevin, the "troops" didn't lie; Karl Rove's Pentagon toadies did, Bush did, and you did.
Ari Fleischer at least had the honesty to admit the truth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml
Not sure what the point was with your CBS link. In addition to being poorly written (e.g., he misspelled Norman Ornstein's name), it only confirms what I noted above, the White House made the banner that the troops requested.
Apparently you didn't read far enough into it to see Ari's quote. Here, I'll help you out:
"We put it up. We made the sign," Fleischer said. "But I think it accurately summed up where we were at the time, mission accomplished... the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein."
So, was Ari lying? This is yet another example of the Moron in Chief trying to foist the blame for his blundering onto the troops. The banner was part of a carefully staged photo-op. The fact that someone in the Pentagon was willing to back up Karl Rove's lie is no surprise. Pat Tillman...Jessica Lynch....need more examples?
The Repugs and the GOP used Mission Accomplished.
This silly semantic argument is ridiculous. She said her vote could "lead to war", but it was not a vote "for the war"........why is she even parsing her words? She should just say it outright, she voted for the resolution knowing full well we could and most likely would go to war.
Now, four years later she wished she hadn't...........I accept that, most people, except the few die hard neocon supporters of Bush, realize that invading Iraq was a mistake.
She is trying to give herself wiggle room when it's not necessary. Why can't politicians just say they messed up, or screwed up, or missed it one time........all this expanation and "CYA" is absurd.
I'm inclined to agree. Other senators have admitted that the vote was a mistake. She's painted herself into a corner with this one. If she'd just said that she regretted the vote months ago, it would be much less of an issue now.
I firmly believe that if anyone knew then, what they know now, they would have been 100% against invading Iraq - no WMD's, no connection to 9/11, etc.......that is anyone who is intellectually honest.
Senators are human beings who make mistakes like the rest of us......they apologize, own up to it, and should be forgiven. I look to them for leadership, honor, integrity and candor.....not perfection.
Tommy, why are you surprised? Her husband quibbles about the meaning of the word "is". Birds of a feather....
You're right, I am not surprised. Parsing words has been raised to an art form.
They knew it was all BS and that Bush intended to attack no matter what. They could see the facts. Hillary trying to backtrack now does nothing to erase the fact that she's voted to fund the war crime ever since. And she still proposes to keep troops in Iraq if president, not end the war crime. That this site is trying to sell her as duped by the admin is just more proof that it's selling right-wing Dems to the masses.
Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq AS A LAST RESORT. Bush used those very words himself when he signed the resolution. The mistake Clinton and other democrats made was giving a madman discretion when it came to when he should invade. Bush knew ALL ALONG he was going to invade Iraq, regardless of how the inspections went. Hillary and the other Democrats should have seen that.
That they didn't, or that they pretend that they didn't, just proves that they are unfit to hold positions of power. They're very eager to kill foreigners, aren't they?
The democrats were afraid to appear un-patriotic in 2004 so they sold out. Bush and the neocons had them by the short ones and they relinquished power. Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. They should never have relinquished that power. I don't think they are "eager to kill foreigners" as you put it. They were just gutless to stand up to a dictator with the corporate media in his back pocket. This is Bush's war, don't forget that.
A war they approved and paid for for the last four years and continue to promote. One thing both parties in DC seem to agree on is killing people.
" and that she did not view her support for the measure as "a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption or for unilateralism." "
Maybe she didn't use those exact words but here is a video of the words she did use,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg
This has been one of the most obnoxious things in politics the last several years; the unquestioned repeating of 'He/she voted for the war". No one in Congress was given a vote on whether or not to invade Iraq when we did. Essentially, they gave W a gun and said use it if you need to. He closed his eyes and stumbled through the door blasting away like an idiot because that's what he intended to do from the start. For the Bushies to now claim that they aren't really responsible for this mess is beyond belief. And worse is the complicity in public discourse to help them make their case.
For all the hyperbole on this thread, I think it is absolutely fair game to hold Hillary accountable for her 2003 vote. That't why I would prefer that the Democratic candidate be someone who stood up to the war from the start. If the Democratic primary is won by someone who not only voted for the resolution but continues to claim it was the right thing to do at the time, like Clinton, and the Republican primary is won by someone who voted for the resolution but is now unequivocally in favor of a rapid withdrawl, like Hagel, it's going to be an interesting election.
The problem that the Democrats have is that y'all thought Hillary at least was intelligent and know you know better and the other candidate will never carry more than 44% of the presidential vote. Face, you have already lost the 2008 election and Rudy will be YOUR president. Get used to it.
Back away from the kool-aid it is rotting your brain. I dont know who the President will be in 08 but it will almost certainly be a Democrat.