Infinite MonkeysI posted this over at RedBlueAmerica. And I now share it with the Monkey Nation.
The New York Times does a bit of fact-checking of Sen. Clinton's claim on Meet The Press yesterday that when she voted to support the war in Iraq in 2002, she was not really voting to support the 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.
Translated in to English, Clinton is trying to claim that she supported a war resolution put forth by Bush-bashing Republican Chuck Hagel. Um, no. Hagel's resolution -- which was "only to secure the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons" -- never hit the floor of the Senate. Hillary, like everyone else, actually voted for this much more comprehensive war resolution.
Indeed, as the Times points out:
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.”
What I find interesting is that the Times also notes -- almost in passing -- that the resolution Hillary voted "aye" on was to "enforce 'all relevant' United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which was the language in the version that ultimately passed."
So ... FINALLY ... the Paper of Record sets the record straight. The Iraq war resolution was not only about WMD, but about enforcing "all relevant" UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq. And there were a lot of them. Some of my favorite language in the war resolution:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
And ...
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
And ...
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
And ...
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
And ... that's enough. There were 23 "whereases" in all. Kudos to The New York Times for calling out the Hillary spin. They didn't seem all that moved to do so regarding John Kerry in '04.
You can argue about Bush's handling of the war. You can argue that the intelligence of the entire Western world was not very accurate. You can even regret your vote.
But you cannot erase the truth of what the sense of Congress was in October 2002, and the fact that there was more than one justification for going to war.