NYT: In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record

[Hissyspit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record

By ERIC LIPTON
Published: January 14, 2008
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.

That agreement resulted in a bill, sponsored in the Senate by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, now an independent, which was slightly less restrictive than the proposal that Mr. Hagel had been helping to develop.

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.

MORE

[lostnotforgotten]

1. She Will Never Be Able To Run Away From That Bad Vote!

eom

[killbotfactory]

2. I'm sure they'll stop repeating this lie, and apologize

:rofl:

[Rageneau]

3. Wonderful how the #@*%! NY(w)T nitpicks HRC and ONLY HRC.

Has anybody seen an instance where the NYT has taken a comment by some other politician -- say, Bush -- and parsed and nitpicked his statements about an important issue -- say, war?

Nope. It's my memory that the New York Times swallowed everything fed to it by BushCo about the war (just as it swallowed everything fed to it by Paula Jones and David Hale) as undoubtable fact.

Seems to me, the NYT will let any politician except Clinton say anything it wants to with impunity -- especially if it's a knock against a Clinton.

Don't wanna whine here -- but, really... I've never seen this paper do this kind of thing to ANYBODY except Bill and/or Hillary.

Can anybody else cite an example of it?

[Breeze54]

4. Are all the other politicians running for the Presidency?

:shrug:

It is very relevant.