NY Times refuses to run correction for false claim in Her Way excerpt
On June 3, The New York Times Magazine will print an excerpt from Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s upcoming book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Little, Brown & Co.) that asserts that Sen. Clinton's (D-NY) June 21, 2006, floor statement was "the first time in her public speeches" that she offered "a new interpretation" -- or "revised account" -- of her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. But Clinton had made the statement to which they were referring numerous times before. In the excerpt, which was posted online on May 29, Gerth and Van Natta write: "The authority Congress given [sic] the president and his administration four years earlier, Clinton explained, had been 'misused' because they acted 'without allowing the inspectors to finish the job in order to rush to war.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Clinton had been publicly claiming that President Bush misused the Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq long before June 2006.
In a May 30 letter sent by email to The New York Times, Media Matters requested that the Times correct the statement. The Times responded by email: "As of now, we see no need for a correction." However, by any reasonable reading of Gerth and Van Natta's claim, it is false.
In their excerpt, Gerth and Van Natta claim that in June 2006, Clinton "for the first time in her public speeches" accused Bush of misusing the 2002 authorization of force against Iraq. But as Media Matters documented, Clinton made previous public statements alleging Bush's "misuse" of that authority -- for example, she told the Poughkeepsie Journal on February 9, 2004: "What happened here is that we gave authority to a president who in my view misused the authority." Gerth and Van Natta offered no indication as to why Clinton's comments to the Poughkeepsie Journal did not (or would not) factor into their research. It is true that her comments to the Poughkeepsie Journal were not made in a "public speech," narrowly construed, but given Gerth and Van Natta's presentation of Clinton's "revised account" as a response to pressure from the left to articulate a more "antiwar" message, the fact that she said the same thing more than two years earlier is an egregious omission on their part, warranting a correction.
Moreover, even under a narrow definition of "public speech," Clinton did accuse Bush in a "public speech" of misusing his authority more than a year before Gerth and Van Natta said she did. During a January 23, 2005, "public speech" at Brandeis University, Clinton said that she "regret[ted] the way the President used the authority." From Clinton's speech:
CLINTON: Now overseas, we face, you see them everyday, horrific challenges. I supported the President's request for a resolution with respect to Iraq. I supported it because first, I, too, believed there were weapons of mass destruction based on eight years of being in the White House during the Clinton Administration. I, too, believed that Saddam Hussein should not be given a free ride for his continuing defiance of United Nations sanctions and international law. But I also believed the President would use that authority wisely and with restraint. And I've been asked many times, do I regret that vote? And I don't regret the vote based on what I knew at the time, but I regret the way the President used the authority. I also deeply regret our lack of planning, our refusal to use enough troops to stabilize and secure Iraq, to prevent looting and to make it very clear that the American military was in charge.
In public statements, Clinton has previously denounced Bush's actions using different wording -- by saying that she "regret[s]" the way he used his authority and by saying that he has "misused" that authority. During her interview with the Poughkeepsie Journal, Clinton said: "I don't regret giving the president authority; I regret the way he used it," and "[w]hat happened here is that we gave authority to a president who in my view misused the authority." Given her use of these two constructions interchangeably in the same interview, it follows, then, that when she said at Brandeis that she "regret[s] the way the President used the authority," she was saying the same thing as saying he misused the authority.
Media Matters identified additional instances in which Clinton criticized Bush for his use of the 2002 force authorization.
From the December 7, 2003, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press:
TIM RUSSERT (host): When you stood up on the floor in October 2002, you said, "It's with conviction I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. It's a vote that says clearly to Saddam, 'This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.' " Do you now regret your vote giving the president the authority to go to war in Iraq?
CLINTON: No. I regret the way the president used the authority. I believe in presidential authority to deal with threats. I wish that the Congress had been, you know, more supportive of my husband when he did what he had to do in Bosnia and Kosovo and elsewhere. So I have no second-guessing about giving the president authority. And, in fact, in the immediate aftermath of that vote, he did exactly what I would have expected and what the White House told me they would do: going to the U.N., getting a Security Council resolution, going back in with inspections. What I do regret and what I think has been unfortunate is the way that that process was short-circuited and the military action was taken without any adequate understanding or planning about what the aftermath would be. And that's the consequence we're living with right now.
From Clinton's December 15, 2003, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:
CLINTON: 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.
From the February 13, 2004, edition of CNN's Inside Politics:
JUDY WOODRUFF (host): Senator Clinton, the same question. Would you have cast your vote the same?
CLINTON: You know, Judy, I regret the way that the authority that I voted for was used. Based on what was made available to us publicly, in classified briefings, I certainly had every reason to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. And that given Saddam Hussein's track record of what I would consider aggressive, belligerent irrational behavior, you could never discount him as a threat.
But I do wish that the president had permitted the U.N. inspections to continue longer than he did, because maybe we would have found that out. And maybe then we would have adopted a different strategy.
From a November 15, 2005, statement:
As I have said in the past, I disagree with the way the President has used the authority granted to him and the way he has prosecuted this war. I am glad that the Senate today acted in a bipartisan manner to demand answers from the President. The time is long overdue for the Administration to give us the facts about their current and future plans for the war in Iraq. Our brave men and women who serve valiantly each and every day deserve nothing less.
From a January 30, 2006, New York Sun article:
Mrs. Clinton insisted that the vote was, in essence, about getting U.N. weapons inspectors readmitted to Iraq. She said she never expected Mr. Bush to go to war before the inspections were complete.
"I did vote to give the president authority based on what the president said he was going to use the authority for," the senator said. "I thought we did need to get inspectors back into Iraq.... I don't regret my vote. I regret the way he used the authority."















Of course the NYT Refuses to correct the lies. The Republican haters are in control. As i have stated so many times before these people will say and do anything to smear and hurt Senator Clinton.
LOL....when you defend Sen. Clinton, you're defending one of the most devious and corrupt politicians in the entire Western hemisphere. This is a woman who goes around abusing the capitalist system and "corporate greed ," while accepting $900000 worth of free rides from a scam artist - the chief of InfoUSA.
KHAN... you mention abuse.... who abuses people and laws and self and AMERICA and earth more.... ? Yeah- that's reich...
Sigh. And we still have 15 months to go. The reich started early this election cycle!
Think of it this way: maybe they'll wear the public out with their HRC-bashing and make her more popular. Well, one could only hope.
a little off topic, but remember how everyone was so indignant about Sharpton when he made his little oopsie about Romney's religion?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-601complaint,0,1736460.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
There's that cricket sound again!
Really have to wonder how interested the IRS would be in this matter, given that it is a hate-wing evangelical mission - nominally, a Repugnant base - guilty of the violation. Perhaps accounting is not as susceptible to politicization as immigration judges, or US attys, and there will be an earnest investigation (to be quashed at the last moment by Rove-sputin)?
And where's the title wave of books from the liberal left that are chock full of BS about Romney, Giuliani, etc.? Seriously, how many have there been? Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but doesn't it speak volumes about the left that we don't have a bunch of liberal literary hacks publishing hastily-written smear rags in an effort to cash in this early on an election and spread fear and lies about why we shouldn't vote for candidate A or B?
Well, we're all just too lazy to write 'em - and too informed to allow them to go without pointing out the lies. Sort of defeats the purpose, if the very first review is is MMFA, debunking all those prevarications.
I'm afraid lies and filth are now mainstays in the conservative party.
Let's be honest: I'd say about 1/3rd of the Republican party is made up of people who are:
a) ignorant
b) incredibly stupid and misinformed
c) bigots
d) liars
e) cheaters
f) deceitful dirtbags
The Con party attracts people of low character it seems to me.
Maybe, but we're still smarter than you.
Leatherhead the set of people in the entire world you are smarter than formed a club and they meet in a phonebooth
I can't believe s/h/it responded to that....
The NYTimes' arrogant respone is exactly why I cancelled my subscription 5 years ago. Every so often I check in to see if they've improved their journalism--and am disappointed. So, no need to purchase or subscribe to a paper which insults my intelligence--and that of all its readers.
They obviously don't care about readers like me.
A couple years ago, The NYT mysteriously started showing up on our doorstep every morning under my wife's name. We had no clue as to why. My wife never subscribed, clicked in a website, or signed her name to anything.
Some days later, we got, you guessed it, A COLLECTION NOTICE for the past due amount on her "subscription". Needless to say, we were absolutely p***ed and called them immediately to demand that they leave us alone and remove our address from their database.
Of course, we still get insulting "invitations" in the mail to "come back to the Times", despite another 3 progressively stern phone calls from me demanding that our information be deleted.
This incident pretty much cements my opinion of the NYT. They are ABSOLUTE SLIME.
It's pretty sad that the New York Times has been reduced to this sort of crap ... Let's face it, they're not half the newspaper they used to be.
Maybe they oughta just sell out to the merchant of filth himself: Rupert Murdoch?
At the rate the NYT is going , Murdoch will probably buy them and turn them into the garbage that the NY Post and FOX is .
Is there any Republican candidate interesting enough that two books can be written about him?
or for whom reality isn't the best hit piece?
More "waaaaah" about someone not kissing Hillary's arse. Why do they defend this woman? She's NEVER done anything for us average Americans. She's a right-winger who's voted for a LOT of bad stuff. She's a conservative. She supports war crimes. She helps kill foreign children. But cry and moan every time the Repubs mention her name!!! The Party demands it!!! Our souls belong to the Party! Heil Hillary!
I thank the Goddess every day that I was born with a functioning bs detector.
Hope you didn't chip a tooth with that usual gnashing of the teeth you are so famous for. Sheesh. Hyperbole personified.
"Anger is an energy"...John Lydon. War criminals make me angry. Hillary is a war criminal. She makes me angry, especially when I watch others defend her. Wouldn't you get angry at neo-nazis for defending Hitler or Repubs for defending Bush? I'll bet you would. But since it's your own favorite war criminal, I'm the one who has no right to get angry, eh? The Party must be defended! The Great Leader must be exalted! The road to fascism continues....