Echoing a January 14 New York Times article, a January 17 Boston Globe article by reporter Marcella Bombardieri suggested that Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) took different positions on the 2002 resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq. In fact, Hagel, like Clinton, voted for the resolution (H.J. Res. 114), and he praised the "substantially similar" Senate version and its sponsors. But Bombardieri's article contained neither of these facts.

From the Globe article, headlined “Clinton attacks put focus on Iraq record”:

In making the case that her vote was meant to put pressure on Hussein rather than a vote for war, Clinton said she believed the White House would use it to press Iraq to let weapons inspectors back into the country, and cited the antiwar Republican senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, as one of its authors.

However, Hagel had been working on a different resolution that would have authorized force only to destroy Iraq's unconventional weapons. It was sidelined in favor of a broader authorization for which Clinton voted that gave a green light to “enforce all relevant United National Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Asked about the apparent discrepancy, the Clinton campaign said Hagel also played a role in shaping the resolution that ultimately was adopted.

Yet at no point in the article did Bombardieri note that Hagel joined Clinton in voting for the final version of the resolution. Nor did her article mention that, in an October 9, 2002, floor speech, Hagel described the compromise bill, S.J.Res. 46 (which is "substantially similar" to the House version that passed) as “a far more responsible and accountable document than” the bill originally proposed by the White House. He specifically noted that it “narrows the authorization for the use of force to all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defending our national interests against the threats posed by Iraq.”

From Hagel's October 9 floor statement:

The United Nations, with American leadership, must act decisively to end Saddam Hussein's decade-long violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

[...]

S.J. Res. 46, sponsored by Senators LIEBERMAN, WARNER, MCCAIN, and BAYH, is a far more responsible and accountable document than the one we started with 3 weeks ago. I congratulate my colleagues, especially Senators LUGAR, BIDEN, and DASCHLE, and the four sponsors of this resolution, for their efforts and leadership in getting it to this point.

S.J. Res. 46 narrows the authorization for the use of force to all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defending our national interests against the threats posed by Iraq. It includes support for U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.; a requirement that, before taking action, the President formally determines that diplomatic or other peaceful means will not be adequate in meeting our objectives; reference to the war powers resolution requirements; and periodic reports to Congress that include those actions described in the section of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 regarding assistance and support for Iraq upon replacement of Saddam Hussein. This resolution recognizes Congress as a coequal partner in dealing with the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

ABC News' political tip sheet The Note flagged the Boston Globe article in the January 17 edition of “The Note's Must-Reads.”