Mitchell falsely claimed Clinton "really misstated her vote on the Levin amendment"

Discussing the January 31 Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles on the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell falsely claimed that during the debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "really misstated her vote on the Levin amendment" -- referring to an amendment offered by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq that would have made Congress' authorization contingent on the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution. In fact, during the debate Clinton acknowledged her vote against the Levin amendment and provided an explanation for her vote that is consistent with the way she explained her position on the day of the vote.

At the January 31 debate, Clinton said of her vote against the Levin amendment:

CLINTON: The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it.

On October 10, 2002, the same day Clinton voted on Levin's amendment, she gave a floor speech that, while not mentioning the Levin amendment by name, included her reason for opposing a proposal that the United States "should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it":

CLINTON: 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 for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

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.

[...]

CLINTON: If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

The Levin amendment stated:

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON IRAQ.

Congress --

(1) supports the President's call for the United Nations to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to meet Iraq's obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities, and to cease the development, production, or acquisition of such weapons, materials, and missiles;

(2) urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that --

(A) demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and

(B) authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply;

(3) affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense; and

(4) will not adjourn sine die this year and will return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce the resolution described in paragraph (2).

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. -- Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

(b) REQUIREMENTS. -- Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 3(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.--

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (22 U.S.C. 1544(b)).

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--

Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 5. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and at least once during every 60-day period thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report containing a summary of the status of efforts --

(1) to have the United Nations Security Council adopt the resolution described in section 3(2); or

(2) in the case of the adoption of such resolution, to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolution.

From the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

MITCHELL: And the problem now for each of them is that, I think, on the stage last night, particularly on Iraq, he proved that he had the more coherent argument. She was really having a hard time explaining her 2002 vote and really misstated her vote on the Levin amendment. And so on that core issue, she wasn't as credible, and he stood up to her, and proved that, you know, he had the credentials to discuss foreign policy. For a challenger, which he is in this context, that was very good.

From the January 31 Democratic presidential debate:

JEANNE CUMMINGS (Politico senior correspondent): Senator Clinton, this one is for you. Judgment has been an issue that's been raised as part of this debate about Iraq. It's been raised by Senator Obama on a number of occasions.

And as this debate has gone on, more than half of the Politico readers have voted for this question, and it is, in effect, a judgment question. It comes from Howard Schuman from Phippsburg, Maine.

And he asks: Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin amendment, which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?

CLINTON: Well, Howard, that's an important question, and the reason is because although I believe strongly that we needed to put inspectors in -- that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give President Bush the authority -- put those inspectors in, let them do their work, figure out what is there and what isn't there.

And I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague Senator Levin. He's my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore I voted against it. I did vote with Senator [Robert] Byrd [D-WV] to limit the authority that was being given to President Bush to one year, and that also was not approved.