Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 12:07 AM
Original message
NYT: In Defending War Vote, Clintons Contradict Record
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpo...

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. Clintons 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 Iraqs 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. Hagels, 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 administrations handling of Iraq, by associating her with a persistent critic of the war.

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. She Will Never Be Able To Run Away From That Bad Vote!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm sure they'll stop repeating this lie, and apologize
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rageneau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-14-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Are all the other politicians running for the Presidency?
:shrug:

It is very relevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 04:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC