NYT: In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record

[flpoljunkie]

(Emphasis mine.)

January 14, 2008
Check Point

In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON — Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton have repeatedly invoked the name of Senator Chuck Hagel, a longtime critic of the Iraq war, as they defend Mrs. Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the war.

In interviews and at a recent campaign event, they have said that Mr. Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, helped draft the resolution, which they said was proof that the measure was more about urging Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections, instead of authorizing combat.

Mrs. Clinton repeated the claim Sunday during an interview on “Meet the Press,” saying “Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war.”

“It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so,” Mrs. Clinton said.

But the talking point appears to misconstrue the facts.

In October 2002, Mr. Hagel had in fact been working with Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, on drafting a resolution that would have authorized the war.

But while those negotiations were under way, to the disappointment of some Congressional Democrats, the Bush administration circumvented their effort and reached a separate agreement with Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, then the House minority leader.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print

[Adelante]

1. This was confusing me

I thought she may have known something I didn't about Hagel in this instance. But it turns out to be another cynical play of truth twisting.

Thanks very much for posting it :hi:

[Nimrod2005]

13. lying

[Inuca]

2. I kept wondering about this

ever since I heard Bill's comment last week. Finally, the NYT has caught up with me :-).

[karynnj]

3. The NYT is right that Hagel was working on Biden/Lugar

Biden/Lugar, the resolution that the SFRC was working on had more language to constrain Bush and people like Dean said they were in favor of it. Had it been Biden/Lugar that passed, it is likely that Bush would have done the same thing he did and likely written the same signing statement when he signed it. The difference is that it would have been clearer that the invasion was not what Congress authorized.

[Maribelle]

4. It is the NYT that is contradicting the record, not Hillary.

Hagel, in fact, said very much what Hillary said.

Hagle said he had misgivings before the vote but Bush assured him that he was going to use the leverage of the bill to get the diplomatic effort on track - - - - - that is the reason Hagle voted yes.

Bush lied to Hagle, Hillary, the American people, the world.

[Inuca]

5. No

The Clintons have repeatedly refered to Hagel as one of the authors of the resolution that was voted on. He was NOT. They are using his strong anti-war position as an excuse.

[Maribelle]

7. She didn't say he was an author. It was a house bill. She said he helped construct/draft it.

1. Not a vote for pre-emptive war.

2. The vote was to get inspectors back in.

And in Senator Obama's recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in.

3. Didn't vote for Levin's amendment because it seemed to give UN Security Council veto power over US President. Did work with Byrd on an amendment that would limit the president's authorization to one year. Was very strongly in favor of limiting what President Bush could do. Worked later with Levin to make sure inspectors got what they needed.

4. Despite what the name implies, Hillary said it was meant to be suthorization to use the threat of force, not actual authorization to go to war. Quoted Chuck Hagel. Mentioned that both she and Hagel received assurances from the White House that inspectors would be allowed to finish their job:

You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do.

5. Would have voted against it if she knew Bush would misuse the authority.

It was a sincere vote at the time, based on my assessment of, number one, what the potential, you know, risks might be if left unchecked, given the problems that we were facing in the world with global terrorism, and the hope that we would get inspectors back in to figure out what had been going on since '98. We hadn't had inspectors since '98. I, I would not have given President Bush the authority if I knew he would deliberately misuse and abuse it. And as I said, I was told by the White House personally that the point of the authority was to send a very clear message to Saddam Hussein that he was going to have to be held accountable finally, that we would know once and for all what he had there that could be used as he had used it in the past.

6. Didn't read the NIE because she had been thoroughly briefed. And went beyond what Bush administration briefers told her to talk with other knowledgable people.

I was fully briefed by the people who wrote that. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense; all of the various players in that. And many people who read it--well, actually, not very many people read the whole thing because we were getting constant briefings. And people--some people read it and voted for the resolution, some people read it and voted against the resolution. I felt very well briefed. And it wasn't just what the Bush administration was telling us in the NIE, I went way outside of any kind of Bush administration sources; independent people, people from the Clinton administration, people in the British government. I looked as broadly as I could at how to assess this.

7. It became obvious after the vote that Bush intended to go to war no matter what happened.

If those inspectors had been permitted to do the job that they were set up to do, we would have avoided war. It became clear in retrospect, Tim, once people started writing books and information came out of the administration, the president had no intention of letting the inspectors do their job.

Barack's problems on Iraq?

Hillary mentioned that Barack said in his latest book that he thought Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons but in spite of that did not support any action at the time. If he thought Saddam had weapons, why did he not support letting inspectors back in? If he thought Bush was going to war no matter what, I suppose he could say that we should not give him anything that could remotely be interpreted as authorization. But I think his biggest problem is with his promise to put aside the tired partisan politics of the past, with Hillary being the one he thinks represents that partisan past. In this instance she did the very thing Barack is promising to, set down and work with Republicans and show some trust. By trusting the Bush administration when it gave personal assurances that it would let the weapons inspectors finish, she did the very sort of thing that Barack is promising to do to end partisan politics. And she got burned because the Republicans she dealt with were not trustworthy. I am concerned that the same will happen to Barack if he is President.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/13/184834/748/955/434331

[Inuca]

11. Hagel was involved in a Senate amendment

the NYT article spells all the details out. Hagel, Biden, and Lugar tried to bring to the floor a more restrictive amendment than the one that was eventually voted on. On the other hand, as karynnj pointed out upthread, the final result would most likely have been the same, Bush would have gone ahead, restrictions or not.

[Maribelle]

14. Perhaps we should ask Hagel then if the NYT is truncating his activities.

That should settle it.

There is a very good chance Hagel can multi-task.

[Inuca]

16. I am sure he can, but I have no idea what you mean n/t

[HeraldSquare212]

6. Hillary: When will Bill stop distorting my record on Iraq?

hee hee

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. interesting!

[hedgehog]

9. It really comes down to this - no matter what the resolution said, no

matter what anyone said, some people knew George Bush was going to have his war and some did not. If Hillary Clinton could not understand and anticipate the actions of a fellow American, albeit one as odd as George W. Bush, how can she hope to act as president on the world stage?

[hedda_foil]

10. She voted against BOTH amendments that would have limited the scope of the resolution.

"In the original proposal Mr. Hagel had backed, force was authorized only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons, not to enforce “all relevant” United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed.

It was the White House proposal, not Mr. Hagel’s, that Mrs. Clinton supported, explaining in an Oct. 10, 2002, speech on the Senate floor that it was time to tell Saddam Hussein that “this is your last chance — disarm or be disarmed.”

The repeated references to Mr. Hagel by the Clintons make it clear that they are trying to distance her from the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq, by associating her with a persistent critic of the war."

[Maribelle]

15. It was neither the White House proposal nor Mr. Hagel’s that Mrs. Clinton supported.

Perhaps you need to do more research.

[Inuca]

17. Not the original WH proposal

which was not even limited to Iraq but was referring to the whole region, but the second version that the WH also supported. Facts are facts.

[bvar22]

12. The Hillary IWR Defense:

I am NOT a Warmonger!


I am just an Idiot!


Vote for Meeeeeee!

[truedelphi]

18. Could we agree to amend that to

Lying Idiot!