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.