As War Neared in 2003 -- Hillary Was Silent

Wherever you stand on the Obama/Clinton race, one thing nearly everyone agrees on is this: She voted for the war resolution in 2002, has not apologized for that vote since -- but now says the resolution did not really authorize the war and calls the 2003 invasion a mistake. But what did she do in attempting to halt the war -- which she felt she did not authorize -- in the two weeks before it began? Apparently, nothing.

With fifth-anniversary coverage now in full swing, I probed The New York Times' online archives today from March 1 to March 23 in 2003 (the war started on March 19), looking for evidence. Numerous articles involving the junior senator from New York turned up, but most related to subjects pretty far afield from the war: from abortion to the St. Patrick's Day Parade.

The only Clinton statement about the war in the Times -- as the countdown arrived -- came in a revealing roundup of local officials' views written by Joyce Purnick. She found several top New York officeholders strongly against the war (such as Rep. Rangel), and a few okaying it. But here is her summary of Hillary's views:

The award for the most indefinite position has to go to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. When her press secretary, Philippe Reines, was asked her position, he sent a transcript of Mrs. Clinton's remarks last Friday on CNN and a news account of her comments on Monday during a visit to Watervliet, N.Y. (It seems that the senator, still a bit first ladylike, is reluctant to pick up the phone.)

She said on CNN that the president ''made the right decision to go back to the United Nations''' and suggested that the country 'take a deep breath, deal with Iraq if we have to, understand exactly what we've gotten ourselves into, because in the briefings I've received, there's a lot of unknowables.'

In Watervliet, the senator said, 'This is a very delicate balancing act.' And, 'I fully support the policy of disarming Saddam Hussein.' She also urged the administration 'to try to enlist more support.'

A skeptic might conclude that Mrs. Clinton wants to appeal to her antiwar constituents in New York now, and to a broader base later -- if she runs for president. Or maybe she remains conflicted.

A little over a week later, on March 14, this letter appeared in the Times, from Susana Margolis of New York City: "It's increasingly evident that the likely invasion of Iraq is only secondarily about the variously offered objectives, from weapons of mass destruction to 'liberation.' Rather, it represents a historic change in United States foreign policy: the establishment of an American garrison to carry out policy goals in western Asia by military means.

The president should come clean on the administration's true intentions, and it is the Senate's duty to debate the issue. Yet there's not a word. New York's senators, having voted for the resolution last year authorizing the use of force in Iraq, appear to have lost their voices entirely. History will record that when the country effected a sea change in its posture toward the world, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles E. Schumer were nowhere to be found.

Nothing else related to Iraq and Clinton turns up in the Times' archive until a week later. Skip ahead to just after the war began, to a March 23 news story: "In New York City, about 35 members of a group called Westsiders for Peace sang, prayed and protested at lunchtime outside the Third Avenue offices of Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Complaining that the senators supported the war, the protesters carried manila file folders that bore messages like, ''Who represents us if our senators aren't listening?'''

NOTE: Greg Mitchell's new book, hailed by Arianna, Bill Moyers and others, is "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq" (Union Square Press). It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and foreword by famed war reporter Joe Galloway.

His email is: [e-mail]

He blogs at:

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/

Comments

[StillAmused]

You're a "word guy"... try READING the Joint Resolution -- ALL OF IT -- which was NOT a 'vote to go to war' (unless you're the type who only reads titles) --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html

... and Clinton's floor speech at the time of the vote --

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

Haven't you overlooked the war criminal who LIED to Congress AND the American people AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE (right there on your tee-vee) when he claimed military action would be "a last resort" -- then promptly pulled the inspectors and invaded, actually in VIOLATION of the Joint Resolution?

Nahh... Clinton's responsible for invading Iraq -- and just in time for the primaries. When do you plan to release your research on Obama's aggressive and repeated tirades against the invasion... even before he showed up in the Senate and proceeded to vote essentially in duet with Clinton?

Thanks for the illuminating analysis.

[nazgul]

In linguistics, there is a concept called a SPEECH ACT. Speech acts can be promising, accusing, bequeathing, etc.

When Clinton voted to give Bush the right to go to war with Iraq she also made a speech act. She clearly preferred renewed inspections and negotiations. She clearly was opposed to pre-emptive war. However, she voted give Bush free reign to deal with Iraq, knowing full well, as we all did since 9/11, that he was intent on invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. In her speech, she said, in effect: Saddam poses a serious, imminent threat and he has supported al Qaeda, and he must be removed, even if that requires War.

Hillary Clinton's SPEECH ACT was thus to APPROVE and SUPPORT both the Bush administration worldview of Hussein AND its right to pursue any and all means to deal with him, at its discretion.

Hillary has since attempted to rewrite history, claiming that she was voting to approve negotiations. That's nothing less than a lie. She had a chance to limit the scope of Bush's actions with the Levin Amendment. She specifically chose to give Bush free reign.

Barack Obama, on the other committed his own speech act. He INFORMED people that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat . He REMINDED people of the reasons given during the Gulf War for not invading and occupying Iraq. He WARNED that such an invasion and occupation would increase, not decrease, terrorism. He PROMOTED a focused campaign against bin Laden and al Qaeda. He PROMOTED a constructive Homeland Security program (not color-coded security alerts). He AFFIRMED the thoughts and feelings of those who knew, based on the information already available, that the War was misguided in every war imaginable.

Obama's speech performed several ACTIONS.


Running for the IL Senate, Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by speaking out against the War at a time when such people were vilified by the administration, the hawk-stacked choirs of media pundits and the right-wing talk radio hosts. It was the opposite of opportunism.

Imagine if Hillary, as the celebrity Senator she is, spoke the words that Obama did. She would be having an entirely different campaign. Imagine if a few other dozen Senators and Congresspeople spoke what they knew to be true. It might an entirely different country. By ceding, as she and so many others did, to the power lords of false patriotism and seeking political cover, she has suffered. And so have we.

[DietrichMoody]

I'm her vote for Iraq, its her judgment that enable people that have endangered the future economic, social and international standing of the USA.

Lack of Decisiveness is her hallmark and no consistency.

[DietrichMoody]

Chafee Raps Clinton As Bush Enabler

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, the lone Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war, calls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton one of the "Democratic Bush enablers" who failed to stand up to the president.
In a new book, Chafee, who is backing Clinton rival Sen. Barack Obama, skewers Clinton and other Democratic White House hopefuls who said they were duped by Bush into voting for the war.
"Being wrong about sending Americans to kill and be killed, maim and be maimed, is not like making a punctuation mistake in a highway bill," Chafee writes. "They argue that the president duped them into war, but getting duped does not exactly recommend their leadership. Helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career- ending lapse of judgment, in my view."
Chafee says top Democrats put their political ambitions first in the fall of 2002.
"They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post- September 11 world, and when they acted on that political self- interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom," he writes.
Last year, Chafee changed his party affiliation and became an independent. He recently endorsed Obama, who spoke out against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state lawmaker.
Chafee's hopes for a second full term in 2006 were dashed by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. Clinton was among leading Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who campaigned in Rhode Island for Whitehouse.
Chafee's book is titled "Against The Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President." He succeeded his father, the late Sen. John Chafee, in the Senate in 1999 after the elder Chafee's death.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VFALNO0&show_article=1

[DownwithFearMongers]

Hillary isnt responsible for all the deaths in Iraq. But she is responsible for some of the death.
I wonder if you split up the deaths between everyone that voted for it, evenly, HOW MANY DEAD CHILDREN WOULD BE IN HER PORTION!
MAYBE JUST A COUPLE DOZEN LITTLE GIRLS HERE AND 20 OR SO LITTLE BOYS THERE.
BUT "THATS OKAY! YOU CANT BLAME HER FOR ALL OF THEM" RIGHT?!
And yes even some of Obamas supporters should be included in that but at least they apologized for their mistake. NOT LIKE THAT COWARD CLINTON!
All of you that support her share in her bloodguilt.

[trbone]

So Obama makes one speech in a liberal anti war district (it would have been unpopoular to be in favor of the war there ). His opponents in the primary all opposed it too. That doesn't t sound very couragious to me. Since he has been in the senate his and Hillar's voting record is identical. Ted Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution( authorized Vietnam War) and the Iraq War . While Kennedy remains highly regarded in the Democrat party even though he made the same mistake twice Hillary can't get the benefit of the doubt once. Word to the wise : the Democrats will not win without winning Ohio . As an Ohio independent I speak for many when I say its Hillary or McCain.

[Oeht]

If you let someone cook dinner once and they mess it up (healthcare in 1993, silence on Iraq now saying she has the "leadership" and "experience" to get us out), why would you allow them to cook it again. She should've used all this experience in the beginning. Voting for the war without reading the NIE report is the worst sign of leadership, and how can you expect someone to lead if they can't admit to their mistakes?

[puakev]

Actually, Ted Kennedy voted against the 2002 Iraq War authorization as well as the 1991 Iraq War resolution, so I don't know where you got you info. I'm assuming you pulled it out of thin air because it supports your argument. (see this link: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00002) Ted Kennedy also called his vote against the 2002 Iraq resolution "the best vote I've cast in my 44 years in the United States Senate."

The question is whether Hillary Clinton has learned from her 2002 vote in the way Ted Kennedy learned from his 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution vote. Hillary hasn't apologized for it and she voted for that Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. Doesn't look like she's learned anything. As far as I know Hillary is pledging to pull out troops now because that's the way the political winds are blowing, just as she voted for the war out of political expediency.

[moxymama]

And Obama has had plenty of opportunity to speak out from the Senate floor to call for an immediate end of the war, to draft impeachment papers for Bush and Cheney, to do so much more than simply vote identically to Clinton (and many others) on the funding of the war since he became a Senator -- but he has not.

[DietrichMoody]

Ohio? The bankrupt state with one of the Nations worst subprime crisis and foreclosures.

Ohio that caused John Kerry's lose.

Well the rest of the country is speaking in volumes and it appears to be Obama and McCain.

And its unfortunate the Ohio National Guard that will be serving many tours of duty in Iraq for the next 10 years, with Clinton and McCain.

Why you people vote against yourself, is beyond me. Good luck with your economy - oh, Iraq has a lot to do with it too.

Sorry the rest of the Country wants to move forward.

[midtown]

Obama was running for office when he said that: Senate office. And it was VERY controversial to say what he did in front of a group of people standing outside listening to his campaign speech.

Democrats will not win without Ohio? Says who? You? Hillary? And you take her at her word?

JACK KENNEDY LOST OHIO AND WON THE PRESIDENCY.

[Kally]

over and over and over and over and over...why in the devil don't you give it a rest. I guess you are trying to blame Hillary Clinton instead of bush and the 97 other senators who voted to give bush the authority to find WMD.'s ....boy if she is that darn powerful why doesn't she just take over the country and kick bush out.

[midtown]

NO, the point is that if her osmosis training from the 90s served her so well, WHY DIDN'T SHE KNOW WHAT FELLOW SENATOR BOB GRAHAM KNEW

[batguano]

Is there a problem with this comment people?You quote Clinton as saying; "because in the briefings I've received, there's a lot of unknowables.'" It sounds to me like she was getting briefs directly from Bush DefSec Rumsfeld during this period, as when he said;

"The message is that there are no 'knowns'. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say, well that's basically what we see as the situation"
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, June 6, 2002 .........kinda similar to the deceitful gibberish we are getting from candidate Clinton these days.

Maybe the Prez wannabe Hills, should have been reading the 2002 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimate, which she admits NOT reading!) prior to her shilling for the Bush/Neocon efforts for war in Iraq, and voting FOR THE WAR, and years later voting for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment re IRAN.

Hillary has been forced to remain silent, assuming her morality would have her speaking out at all, on issues of war and military adventurism, because she "has to look tough", and the influence over her by the pro-Israel at any cost lobby. She did not speak out against this mind boggling disaster for OUR nation (not to mention Iraq) of a needless and devastating war. She does not support a ban on anti-personnel land mines or a ban on cluster munitions (both anti-civilian weapons favored by Israeli forces), and she remained silent during Israels recent cowardly bombing of of Lebanon's civilians and civilian infrastructure. Candidate Clinton has a history of pro-violence and military solutions for social problems/conflicts. Hillary, as well as the other New York Senator, Chucky Schumer and many of our other Representatives and Senators, I believe, by their votes cast, have been subverted by the Israeli lobby in America as presented in the Walt/Mearsheimer Report http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 and the book by ex-Prez Jimmy Carter; Lobbyist organization like AIPAC, AEI, PNAC and JINSA exert influence on EVERY candidate or elected rep, whether Dem or Republican. Hillary's stand on America's involvement in wars that "favor" Israel and Israeli extremist goals, as well as that of the other co-opted members of our Congress, have been strongly influenced and subverted by the Israeli lobby to our national shame.; and that includes her vote for war and the deliberate destabilization of Iraq (and potential war w/Iran via Kyle-Lieberman) that will cost our nation trillions as well as the loss of our national honor and the deaths of 4000 of our military sons and daughters to date, and the maiming of over 25,000, as well as, by some estimates, up to half a million Iraqi's killed.

This is NOT the record of a person who should be making policy for our nation!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html
http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

[BubbaC33]

Israel does not control the foreign policy of the US. That is demonstrably false and it serves no purpose to make such blatantly dishonest allegations.

[batguano]

Maybe you should read my comment again. I said that the israeli lobby in America approaches every candidate and elected rep to push the goals, issues and propaganda they see as in Israels interest. "Demonstrably false"? It is demonstrably TRUE that the pro-Israel lobbyist groups mentioned DO SUBVERT our foreign policy through their influence and pressure of elected officials, our media/press and policy makers. It is true that the NeoCon's in and around the Bush Admn. pushed for this war in Iraq as part of their support for Israel and it's goals. Their pressure in favor of Israeli goals and against a real solution and end to the illegal occupation and colonization of Palestinian lands has been a disaster of historic proportions for American interests. Try reading the pieces in the links above, especially the Walt-Mearsheimer piece, to educate yourself. Here are two more from a person I do not usually have anything in common with, but in this analysis he is on the money.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

http://www.amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

[cornflower]

Did anyone else hear Bill Clinton addressing a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania this weekend? It was broad cast on C-SPAN. He sounded like a political snake oil salesman, actually telling the audience that HC was going to create millions and millions of jobs in Pennsylvania. That is literally what he said.

These people are so over. When will Democrats wake up????

[BrooklynLager]

They have. Mostly.

[dawlishgal]

What about the jobs in PA (and elsewhere) that the Clintons lost with his broken promise to oppose NAFTA and her bungling with the healthcare plan...the plan that, together with NAFTA, through our labor force onto the international labor market as the ONLY ONES in the world without government-sponsored healthcare. If the Clintons are so smart why didn't they realize how much they were tilting the field against our workers. Why would employers want to keep (or move) jobs here when here they are responsible for healthcare of workers (or pressured to pay for health insurance for them), and ANYWHERE ELSE, they wouldn't be. With healthcare here such a huge portion of total employee costs, why woudn't entrepreneurs take their jobs elsewhere?

[robeson]

Hillary was an active agent for Bush's preventive war (an international crime).

UK Guardian,
The fact remains that the president asked the Senate for the authority to wage war on Iraq, and Clinton voted to give him that authority. What's more, on March 17, 2003, George W. Bush gave a nationally-televised address signaling his intention to use the authority Clinton granted him in order to wage a unilateral preventive war against Iraq. "Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours," the president said.

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler, Frankly, I would not listen to anyone who seriously talked about such a thing."
Dwight David Eisenhower

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I assume you're going to also research the firm stand that Obama has taken against the war since he's been in the Senate. A man with his inspirational speaking skills, firm opposition to the war and penchant for effecting change must have lots of bills and electrifying senate podium speeches on the record. I can't wait to see them. Thanks!

[cornflower]

You haven't listened to his campaign speeches in which he unequivocally states his intention to withdraw from Iraq. Listen before you accuse him of not speaking in opposition to the war.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

I have listened to him. I voted for him in my state's primary. I'm talking about past record/actions versus promises.
Perhaps you should practice what you preach in the listening before accusing department.

[JXB]

This is a powerful point, and it may be the reason no other senator who voted for the resolution has offered up the "explanation" that it actually was not an authorization to go to war but rather a vote to further negotiations and diplomatic efforts. If this was Clinton's understanding and intent at the time, then one would have expected her to be screaming foul from the rooftops once it became clear that the administration was not pursuing diplomatic efforts with any seriousness and was going to war with the authorization it had received from Congress.

[robeson]

Hillary was more than a Bush War supporter, she was not silent but was a propagandist.

NYT, "Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks."

There was no intelligence suggesting this so Hillary must have taken this lie directly from the Bush administration. She was an active Bush aide for war.

[desmirl]

Hillary learned nothing in 2003. She voted for Bush's request for funds time and again, and to put the cherry on the sundae, she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which is nothing but a back-door entry into war with Iran. Hillary IS a WARMONGER.

[Citizen54]

It's hard to shake the suspicion that Clinton voted for the war so that when she ran for President in 08 no one could accuse her of being soft. It was an attempt to be one of the boys, to appear "tough on national security." I think she figured if they find WMDs in Iraq, being opposed to the invasion would make her look weak and naive. It was simply a political calculation that failed.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

More democratic senators voted for the war resolution than voted against it. Do you think they were all politically planning for their presidential run? And more importantly, do you know how YOUR senator voted?

[peascott]

Hillary & Bill did not want Kerry to win in 2004, he would be running for re-election in 2008 and ruin her chance for running for President herself. Hillary did not want to appear soft. She along with the other lazy Democrats voted "yes" becuase they were afraid. They did not use simple common sense, Saddam did not want anything to do with anyone taking over his iron control over his country so NO he was not in bed with Al Qaeda. What's really freaking amazing is Hillary claiming all that experience she gained while in the White House and then she turnarounds and votes yes on war? Please, Hillary has no more experience to offer than any other candidate she just happens to be married to a former President. Her Iraq vote and her Iran Revolutionary Guard vote are perfect examples of a politician playing "follow the leader" not a example of a REAL LEADER.