NY Times misrepresented Clinton's position on 2002 Iraq resolution
SUMMARY: The New York Times falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton "has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war." In fact, Clinton acknowledged at the time that the vote for the resolution could "lead to war," but she has stated that a vote for the resolution was not a "vote[] for" war, and that she expected the Bush administration to push for more weapons inspections in Iraq before resorting to war.
A September 15 New York Times article -- which purported to determine the "accuracy" of a campaign video released by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's campaign -- falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the 2002 resolution for which Clinton voted gave the president the authority to go to war against Iraq, and Clinton acknowledged at the time that the vote for the resolution could "lead to war." Clinton has, however, stated that a vote for the resolution was not a "vote[] for" war, and that she expected the Bush administration to push for more weapons inspections in Iraq before resorting to war.
Prior to her vote, in an October 10, 2002, statement on the Senate floor, Clinton said that she expected the White House to push for "complete, unlimited inspections" and added, "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." Clinton also asserted in that statement that "bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely." She added that "[a] vote for [the resolution] 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."
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.
From the September 15 article in The New York Times:
SCRIPT: Senator Clinton speaking before the war in 2002, "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."
The narrator then says, "But now that she's running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position, even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus. Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran this venomous ad in The New York Times." Mrs. Clinton is shown at the Senate hearings saying: "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." The narrator says: "Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them. General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing. Apologize for your comments and condemn the MoveOn.org ad."
ACCURACY: Mrs. Clinton has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war, but she been faulted by her Democratic opponents for that vote and how it squares with her current criticism of the war. While the Giuliani campaign says Mrs. Clinton "joined" with MoveOn.org in attacking General Petraeus, there is no evidence to suggest that the group colluded with her.
????????
The point is??????
I have no clue.
NY Times misinformation below
ACCURACY: Mrs. Clinton has always maintained that her support of a Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq was not an authorization to go to war.
The facts below
Mrs Clinton has always maintained that she knew that her support for the resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq was an authorization to go to war.
Her vote was not a vote for war. Her vote was not a vote in support of what George Bush eventually did, that is, go to war instead of using diplomatic means along with UN inspectors to avoid war. But she always has acknowledged that her vote authorized Bush to go to war.
Either the NY Times doesn't understand that simple difference, or they are trying to continue carrying water for the Bush administration. Saying that Hillary voted for the war is a Republican talking point that's not based in reality.
"I take the president at his word"
Lesson learned?
Looks like a standard negative coment on Hillary. Any thing not wholehartedly with shrub is somehow hurting our troops. Whipsawed with misrepresentation of her position for authorization of the use of force in Iraq. Not quite a hatrick for NYT.
I admit, I am highly angry at Hillary, Edwards, and the rest of our Democrats who let us down on that vote. I know that Bush supplied them with cherry picked intelligence reports. But, I closely watched the events unfold prior to our invasion of Iraq.
Colon Powell's appearance before the UN was my turning point. I knew then, that if his was the best case we could come up with, then there was no reason to invade. I thought our congress would also see it that way.
Truth is, the revenge momentum carried the U.S. right into Iraq, and the majority of Congress voted along that line. Most of those who didn't think it was a good idea, voted to give Bush authority so as not to appear to be "unpatriotic" the way others had been branded if they didn't follow in lockstep.
And now, there they are, having a hard time defending what is, and should be, indefensible. Meanwhile, Rightwing nut cases are saying; "The Democrats voted for it, it'a their fault too," as if to say "You know we are screw-ups, why didn't you stop us?" And Bush is trying to run out his clock so the blame goes to somebody else.
God forgive all of us.
Rick, I'm so with you on that. The way this is talked about is wrong from about ten different angles.
In one sense, it could be reasonable for a senator to make the claim that they had to play it 'safe' with Iraq and make sure the President had the guns to scare them into allowing inspectors. In that way they shouldn't be so nailed about voting yes.
Except that I, as a dumb citizen, knew that Iraq was no threat for a number of reasons. The most simple being that Saddam was no religious wing-nut with a penchant for martyrdom. It was clearly NOT his M.O. to do anything that would actually jeapordize his cushy life. Why these brilliant leaders couldn't see this while I could will always be a mystery to me.
Another angle is the Trusting Bush thing. This too is unforgiveable. What exactly had he done to engender trust? Was it the way he rode Rove's slime trail into office? Was it the way he focused on Missile Shield and Brush Clearing instead of terrorism prior to 9-11? Was it the way his administration was driven by people like Wolfowitz and others who clearly wanted to occupy Iraq in the name of some weird, imperial experiment and had made that perfectly clear? Their reason for going after Iraq was that it was an easy target, not a threat. Again, to me this was blatantly obvious.
So, really, if Hillary or John Ed are in the room with me now, how do they explain one on one how they didn't see any of this from their positions of power? They certainly haven't cleared any of it up for me from behind the podium.
What should be impossible would be for Republicans to make any political hay over this. As you said, Democrat's worst crime was not stopping the crazy Republicans. The Democrats in their usual blundering way have failed to publicly make the point that a majority of them did vote against the resolution. I believe this is because many of the most prominent, politically ambitious ones voted for it. Sadly, in the cases of Hillary and John Ed it implies to me a vote for political expediency in the nationalistic fervor of '03. This really is a huge knock against them for me. It shows bad judgement because it was pretty obvious they were giving a gun to a guy dying to start shooting. They failed the world in that regard.
And they failed the party by doing exactly what the righties are always accusing them of. Forgetting their good sense and prinicples and bowing to a tide of public opinion. If we don't have leaders who can stand up to misguided war fervor, we're really screwed.
'08 needs to be primarily a rejection of Bush and the direction we have been blundering under his 'leadership.' But it should also be a rejection for Democrats of the style of politics that allowed him to do so much damage. For me, Obama as the nominee would hit the nation like an adreneline rush and genuinely go a long way to bringing back a sense of hope. It's crazy, I hate that kind of cliche campaign language. But I'm not repeating any bs line. I really see a chance for that. Fortunately for me, I live in Iowa and I'm going to do what I can to try to help make it happen.
Although I would like to see Obama as Pres, I think many will do anything in their power to make certain that an AfricanAmerican is not President. My fear (God forbid) is that those horrible events in 1968 might be replayed by some right wing nut-job, who can recite only the 2nd amendment to our constitution.
I think the Democarats might be self-destructing again in their fear of Obama as their candidate. They keep passing on golden opportunities and going the 'safe' route of 'experience' like the Kerry debacle. Nothing safe about putting up a less talented candidate.
I would put it that Obama is fairly impeccable. And he responds to cheap smears better than any Democratic candidate other than Bill Clinton that I've ever seen. I'm talking Clinton vs. Old Bush not President Clinton. I think it will be similar in that any far-reaching attempts to smear him will ultimately backfire on the smearers.
The race factor too should be embraced, not feared. How about the poetry of the fact; the White House itself was built in large part by the hands of slaves. Isn't it time for a black man (in this case, man) to reside there as President? Doesn't this show how things come full circle in a way? Doesn't this show to the world that the United States does evolve and grow closer to our ultimate ideal, that all men are created equal? This is a narrative that could really captivate the nation in a positive way. Particularly because Obama is such a dignified and highly intelligent individual. We've come a long way since Strom Thurmond switched parties and the southern racists, over a generation, have drifted pretty completely into the GOP. We don't want 'em and we don't need 'em to win. And a successful, admirable President Obama could go a long way towards helping the next generation avoid that disease.
Yes. Yes. I agree completely. It would be wonderful to have a President that we (and our children) could admire, who can speak eloquently, and in complete and coherent sentences.
I believe Obama is a brave individual. He must be. I think he'll lead by example. And I think he cares about the public, and what we think of him. How refreshing.
Howver, if he doesn't get the nod, I'll support the Democrat that does. The alternative would be more disaster that we can no longer afford.
Good grief, I'd support a duck over some character like Romney or Guiliani. Just let the thing hang out and quack for four years and take pictures with school kids. We'd be better off than continuing with these GOP freaks. I'm not kidding either. I mean the duck idea might be kidding, but I'd just as soon leave the office empty for a term and see if we can learn to legislate government again. I know it don't work that way! I'm just saying we're losing an awful lot of the Constitution under these clowns and it seems pretty DRASTIC to me.
Nothing short of initiating articles of impeachment against both W and his Vice will change this course. Are there any reasons that Congress can't go after Gonzales as well? Surely, if a man commits crimes in the course of pursuing his business, then simply retiring from that business doesn't absolve him of his criminal acts.
When the resolution passed I thought what does Iraq have to do with anything? Why doesn't someone ask that question? Did Democratic Senators fail us, yeah they did.
We have now occupied an Arab country and killed thousands of innocent Arabs. With no end in sight and unfortunately no one in the current administration who has any knowledge of how to get us out especially Condi Rice. One reason that I'm OK with Hillary as President is because of Bill Clinton. I think Hillary is smart enough to know that he is one of only a few who can speak to both sides (Arabs and Israelis) and hopefully come to some common ground. Of course it's also my opinion that part of the reason that Junior invaded Iraq besides oil was to ride Israel of a crazy neighbor, Saddam. That crazy neighbor would possibly harm Israel and in his evangelical thinking home for "The Rapture". But I honestly believe the peaceful road out of Iraq lies partially with reaching some type of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians. That, IMO should have been one of our top priorities. In invading Iraq we have neglected the main conflict, allowing Hamas a governmental leadership role, allowing Iran to funnel $$ to Hamas and Hezbollah, creating a bigger crisis in the future of the Middle East.
Hi Pearlene,
I'm very not OK with Hillary as president and not because of her vote on the '02 resolution.
She is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, I think her appeals to the populist base are calculated to extract just enough votes to garner a 50 + 1% majority.
Here's a couple of interesting articles about her campaign strategist:
[link to www.thenation.com]
[link to www.inthesetimes.com]
One reason that I'm OK with Hillary as President is because of Bill Clinton.
Hey Roundhouse, I'm not a Hillary fan but if it comes down to Hillary vs any other Republican candidate, she's got my vote (general election). I won't be happy that the two candidates I'm looking at (Obama and Edwards) didn't win but I can tolerate Hillary. I cannot under any circumstance tolerate another 4 years of any of the Republicans candidates.
I think I just heard a chorus saying "Amen!"
A reluctant Amen. But an Amen just the same.
Hi Pearl, I have to disagree with one point you make. It's that Saddam would have hurt Israel. I'm still not clear as to why we're so willing to buy into the Saddam as a real threat idea. Everything about the guy in '03 suggested that he was perfectly containable. Probably more so than many other evil dictators around the globe. The right covers this with the straw man that 'well, he was a bad guy!' Yes, he was a bad guy, but why does that mean we can't look at whether or not he was a threat? He was a fat gangster basically who loved his palaces and his cushy life. Any move against Israel would have ended it. Outside of Iraq he was weak and indeed, Iraq was weak. The reason we invaded was the opposite of what we were told. Iraq was an easy target for the imperial experiment so desired by Wolfowitz and many others in the administration. Bush the son of Bush was their vehicle, 9-11 was their fuel.
I imagine you see much of it as I do. I've read and enjoyed many of your posts. I just think that bolstering the myth that he was a threat confuses the issues and the real story of who did what in the first decade of this century.
Of course it's also my opinion that part of the reason that Junior invaded Iraq besides oil was to ride Israel of a crazy neighbor, Saddam.
Sundog, sorry that was a sarcastic remake.
That crazy neighbor would possibly harm Israel and in his evangelical thinking home for "The Rapture".
Sundog, that again was another sarcastic remark. Saddam was a threat to no one, including Israel. He was a threat to Israel only in the minds of crazy evangelicals like Junior who see Israel as the home of "The Rapture".
Thanks Pearlene, I caught all of the sarcasm about the Rapture but thought that you were making the point that you believed Iraq was actually a threat to Israel. I just happened to be on the subject of 'Saddam's Threat' right before I read your post so it jumped out at me.
Why was Hillary mixing Iraq together with 9/11 when THEY ARE NOT AND WERE NOT related?!!
"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."
But Portnoy, your argument simply jumps to the conclusion that invading Iraq was somehow a proper approach to making us safer from terrorism. And it is also a blatant straw man in implying that anyone not for the war doesn't care about protecting us from terrorism. You're clearly too bright to not know that these are dishonest arguments. Do you believe that it helps your 'side' to jump in on the talking points fed down the line? I'm not trying to be insulting but for the life of me that's sure what it appears like.
Truth is, I just don't like Hillary and I think that she was just as much a part of conflating the war in iraq with the fight against terrorism as Bush was. Personally, I'm an Obama man because, among other reasons, he's not tainted by the iraq war and I actually believe his stand on it. I just think that Hillary, multiple times in the speech listed above, made the case for invading iraq by conflating that ridiculous expedition with the fight against actual terrorists.
Maybe you were just pointing out that Hillary kind of helped the Bushies make the 9-11 - Iraq connection? Perhaps I misunderstood your post? I guess there's nothing there to imply that you buy that line.
I do think it's true that the media helps the Right make their case against Hillary. I also think she bungled her chance as a representative of New York to make it clear that invading Iraq wan't going to avenge 9-11 or make us any safer. These are serious knocks against her as the choice for the Democratic nominee in my book.
Apoligies if I misunderstood your original post.
You answered my question before I could post this. Please see my post above addressed to Rick regarding all of this.
Bit of unsupported rhetoric there Portnoy. Acting on possible risk from terrorism does not make it a comment on Iraq. Unless your hiding those words somewhere.
The quote I used was directly from her speech about why she was voting for the iraq war resolution.
MMFA still trying to portray Hillary as duped by Bush, eh? Yeah, them AIPAC-owned Democrats would NEVER vote to kill an arab if they could help it. Anyone remember the House overwhlemingly supporting Israel's mass slaughter of Lebanese civilians last year? I think only 11 out of about 500+ Congressmen voted against it. Dem Party is chock full of war criminals eager to bomb a moslem child to assist Israel in it's killing sprees. Yet another reason to vote Green or Libertarian. Both of those parties demand we stop supporting Israeli war crimes and actually force Israel into a lasting peace with it's neighbours, which would go a long way to restoring good relations with the arabs.
Just a little reminder king. We don't actually have a parliament. Maybe that helps? Voting as though we don't have a two party system doesn't actually change the fact you know.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "two-party system". Nowhere in US law does it say "two party system". Only in the ANTI-democratic rantings of major party partisans does that term appear.
I've actually never been much of a partisan king. I've seen a clear need in recent years to put a check on the extreme right-wingers who've taken so much power and have no respect for the Constititution. Denying that the Democrats are the best chance of doing that now simply isn't facing reality. Trying to maintain that the Democrats are just as bad as the Buch/Cheney/Rove/Wolfowitz folks seems like an hallucination to me. I don't feel you've made the case in the least. You compare the Democratic party to Nazis, you consider Al Gore a right-winger? I think if you serve any good purpose right now it's to turn reasonable people off of the Green Party. For that I'm grateful. I've said it many ways many times, a strong, consistant faction of Green Democrats will both transform the party and the nation. It will take patience, compromise and understanding but the miracle is that it can be done. It seems to me that you're more interested in your personal 'purity' than any desire to make a positive impact on the world. You accuse other people of murder and then rant about Revolution. If we make our system work it eliminates the need of bloody revolutions. You seem to have no interest in making things work and your words sound bloody to me. Your accusations of murder seem painfully ironic both in the rhetoric you use and the way you've excused yourself from any responsibility about what has gone down.
Why do you keep arguing for people to vote for a party of proven war criminals and mass murderers? They're killing people in Iraq and they're killing people in Palestine. Don't expect me to vote for them...and yes, I do consider it important NOT to vote for killers. It's called "having a CONSCIENCE".
Yea yea and clearly I don't have a conscience. I'm just a hedonistic pleasure seeker who for some reason tries to talk to other people about what the best way might be to save lives and make a better government in order to improve schools, protect the rights of minority groups, improve the environment and avoid unnecessary wars. Just a crazy Nazi. That's me I guess.
From my perspective you seem to care way the hell more about your own 'conscience' than protecting the environment. Again, it seems ironic as hell. It's hard to believe that what you're boasting about is conscience. Because if your conscience told you to do what was best for the environment seems like you'd be willing to actually consider some of the facts about the world you live in and the possibilities of what might be accomplished. What you sound like is someone drowning in pride.
You support a party of killers and then insult me for my "pride" of not supporting war criminals? Puh-lease. Here's a buck, buy a conscience.