The Myth of the Iraq War Vote

In one of my political science courses today, we got off on a tangent and started discussing the presidential election. A classmate of mine had brought up how Barack Obama was against the war before it had been executed, and how this was a testament to his superior judgement compared to Hillary Clinton. Another student countered this argument by referring the oft-cited quote from Hillary Clinton: "I made it very clear that my vote was not a vote for pre-emptive war." This argument suggests that the war is solely President Bush's fault, and that poor ol' members of Congress were lied and tricked into voting for it because they were made to believe a war wasn't going to happen.

This is an excerpt of Senator Clinton's speech in October of 2002, when the authorization to go to Iraq was being debated in Congress. "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change. And began to examine options to affect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security. This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction. And, perhaps, my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations, or in war. Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity. And for our support for the president's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our armed forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

This speech suggests that Senator Clinton knew what it was: a vote that expressed authorization for the president to wage a war in Iraq. The notion that she was duped by President Bush, and that she was misled into thinking that Bush wouldn't actually go to war, is completely false. Congress may have been misled by the intelligence reports, but suggesting that the legislation was nothing more than a tactic to boost President Bush's negotiaton posture in the international community is ridiculous. According to Congressional Quarterly, which archives every piece of legislation, the legislation was clear in its intention:

Use of Force/Passage. (in Sen.) H J Res 114.
Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq and require the administration to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted no later than 48 hours after military action has begun. The president also would be required to submit a progress report to Congress at least every 60 days.
(source: http://library.cqpress.com/congress/wr20021130-0000000048)

And I know that my personal anecdotes may be insignificant, but when this was being debated in October of 2002, I was a high school sophomore. My Biology teacher at the time held a class discussion about potentially going to war with Iraq, forgoing a lecture on genetics. He knew it was legislation authorizing war, and so did we-- there was no question. But it just seems that now, the atmosphere suggests that because this vote took place so long ago, that people like Senator Clinton can change their account of what really happened. This strategy counts on people not remembering what actually occured at the time. Senator Clinton also voted against the Levin Amendment, which reads as follows:

Use of Force/U.N. Resolution. (in Sen.) SJRES45
Levin, D-Mich., amendment to the Lieberman, D-Conn., substitute amendment. The Levin amendment would authorize the use of force against Iraq if it failed to comply with a new U.N. resolution that demanded unrestricted access for U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq and authorized the use of military force by U.N. members to enforce the resolution. Congress could return to session at any time to promptly consider proposals related to Iraq if the U.N. failed to adopt such a resolution.
(source: http://library.cqpress.com/congress/rc2002-188-9291-563713)

Make no mistake: Congress, including Senator Clinton, authorized the war in Iraq, and rejected any diplomatic measures that would have balanced out America's security interests and the need to maintain diplomacy. To suggest otherwise is purely revisionist history.