by Kedron Bardwell and POSC 255
In the Yahoo! News Election ’08 Democratic Candidate Mashup, an online debate, moderator Bill Maher asked Senator Hillary Clinton a question about the 2002 Iraq resolution:
“Senator Clinton, all the senators here, except Senator Obama, voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, saying that their decision was based on intelligence that they believed to be accurate at the time. In other words, George Bush fooled you. Why should Americans vote for someone who can be fooled by George Bush?"
Clinton replied:
“Well, Bill, it was a little more complicated than that. I sought out expert opinions from a wide variety of sources. People inside and outside the government, people in my husband's administration. And I think it is fair to say that, at the time, I made it very clear I was against a pre-emptive war. And I believed that giving the president authority to go back to the United Nations and put in inspectors was an appropriate designation of authority. That is not what we have seen him do, and I've said that had I known then what I know now, obviously, I would never have voted to give [President Bush] the authority.” [italics added]
There is plenty of room for confusion here. Clinton’s use of the word “authority” seems to refer to two different types of presidential power. If the first use of the word only meant authority to go back to the U.N., then it would be odd for Clinton to say she “would never have voted” to give Bush that authority. Few Senators opposed that step. In fact, the word “authority” is probably not the right word to use here; Bush did not need Congress’ approval to go to the U.N. -- all presidents have the inherent power to do so. In this context, the meaning of Clinton’s second use of the term becomes clearer. The 2002 Iraq resolution did more than give the President a mandate to work with the U.N. It set guidelines for the possible use of military force. What follows is an in-depth look at the resolution to cut through confusion about the vote.
********
Clinton’s defense of her vote on the 2002 Iraq resolution raises three questions: (A) What did the Iraq resolution authorize, and how was this understood at the time of the vote? (B) How did President Bush interpret this authority in 2002? (C) What did Senator Clinton say about the vote in 2002, and is this different from her campaign rhetoric defending the vote today?
(A) What did the bill (H. J. Res. 114) authorize, and how was the vote understood at the time?
News reports in 2002 overwhelmingly called the authorization a “war resolution.” CNN coverage of the October 11, 2002, vote on the joint resolution (headlined “Senate Approves Iraq War Resolution”) began:
“In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.”
The title of the Iraq resolution (“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”) leaves little doubt about what was at stake in the vote. That being said, let’s dissect the vote in detail to reveal the nuance in Clinton’s quote. From the resolution’s “Authorization for Use of U.S. Forces” section:
“The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” [italics added]
The resolution clearly put the decision about war with Iraq in the hands of President Bush, by giving him the authority to use force to defend the U.S. against an existing threat, and to back up existing U.N. Security Council mandates on Iraq.
The 77-23 vote badly divided Democrats in the U.S. Senate over this very issue. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), quoted in the above CNN report, warned that this first point of the resolution represented a “blank check” that would enable President Bush to use military force in Iraq.
In fact, two Democrats fought for amendments to limit the President’s authority: the Levin Amendment (the “Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act,” requiring President Bush to secure U.N. Security Council approval before the use of force in Iraq could be authorized) and the Durbin Amendment (to limit the use of force authorization to cover only an “imminent” threat from Iraq’s potential WMDs, rather than a broad “continuing” threat from Iraq). Both amendments were soundly defeated. Of the Democratic Senators running for president who were in the Senate in 2002, only Senator Dodd voted for even one of the two amendments (the latter).
This second point of the authorization (enforce all U.N. Security Council resolutions) refers to the introductory section of the Iraq resolution, which catalogued the infractions of the Iraqi regime, including Iraq’s continued non-compliance with terms of a 1991 Gulf War cease fire.
Despite many concerns, the Iraq resolution that came to the U.S. Senate floor did not restrict the use of U.S. forces by requiring Bush to get U.N. approval (as Levin’s Amendment would have mandated). Congress put the power to use force in Iraq in President Bush’s hands, and gave him flexibility to, consistent with the resolution, set the time and terms of a use of force.
This is explained in a section called “Presidential Determination”. In layman’s terms, this part of the Iraq resolution relied on the President’s judgment (“determination”; it stopped short of a mandate) that peaceful, diplomatic efforts would be exhausted BEFORE U.S. armed forces would be sent against Iraq. This leads to Point B.
(B) How did President Bush interpret the Iraq resolution and his authority in 2002?
This question is best answered by looking at President Bush’s statement about the Iraq resolution when he signed it on October 16, 2002. In that press release, Bush declared:
“I sought an additional resolution of support from Congress [H.J. Res 114] to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President’s Constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests.”
and
“Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so.”
This clarifies what we learned from the resolution’s text and from press coverage of the debate and vote: Bush sought Congressional authorization to move against Iraq in the case that it was (in his judgment) a continuing threat and still violating U.N. resolutions.
What the excerpt also offers is a full view of the electoral politics of the Iraq resolution, from the viewpoint of Senators who had to vote up or down on it in a tough political environment. Bush is arguing here in no uncertain terms (like his father before him) that even WITHOUT a congressional authorization, presidential power includes using force to protect U.S. interests.
In that sense, Senator Clinton could make a strong argument that her hand in the matter was “forced” by Bush. But is that her argument today in defense of the vote? This leads to Point C.
(C) How did Senator Clinton frame the vote in 2002, and is this different from her campaign rhetoric defending the vote today?
Again, the best place to find an answer is the record of Clinton’s own statements in 2002. At the time, she made a speech on the Senate floor explaining her support for the Iraq resolution. This rhetorical record in 2002 is clear (again, with some nuance). Her speech begins:
“Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq, should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.”
She continues,
“I believe the best course is to go to the U.N. for a strong resolution that…calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization [from the U.N.] to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement
for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution…”
and
“Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible…” [italics added]
Finally,
“I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of the President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
Are Sen. Clinton’s arguments in 2002 different from how she is "spinning" them today? Readers will judge her by her own words. When pressed to explain her 2002 vote earlier this year, an April 11 USA Today report quoted Clinton as saying she voted for “coercive diplomacy.” She explained,
"When somebody disagrees with me, or if they want somebody who has apologized for their judgment about the use of coercive diplomacy and the role that that plays in furthering American national interests, they have other people to vote for."
In a speech to the National Association of Black Journalists on October 9, 2007 -- in reply to a question about whether the Iraq resolution authorized war -- she noted:
“I voted for diplomacy and inspection…People don't usually put it in that larger context, as what many of us thought we were voting for and what Bush did with the vote he was given. At the time, I said my vote was not a vote for pre-emptive war."
Understandably, many questions about the vote continue to dog Senator Clinton on the campaign trail.
* If she was concerned about U.N. approval (a “global coalition”) for any use of force, why did she vote against the Levin Amendment requiring it? Did she fear that the move would give up U.S. sovereignty?Lesson: This issue will not be answered in a sound bite or by a short fact-checking article. Voters who want to know more about Senator Clinton’s vote on the 2002 Iraq resolution can read an in-depth article on the issue in the New York Times Magazine here. It is clear her campaign’s intent is to minimize damage on the Iraq vote with Democratic primary voters, by framing the resolution as a vote for inspections. She is under heavy pressure from contenders who spoke out against the resolution from the start (Sen. Obama) or who more clearly labeled their votes in favor of it as “mistakes” (most of the rest). We will continue to listen to Clinton’s rhetoric explaining her 2002 vote on Iraq.
* Why does Clinton minimize what the Iraq resolution did? Could she argue instead that the President’s will to use force (with our without congressional approval) forced the hand of the Senate? Is her strategy meant to preserve this prerogative for future presidents in the area of national security and war powers?
