ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



Hillary's war vote

Posted: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:13 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: ,

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Mark Murray
In the upcoming New York Times magazine, the authors of the new biography of Hillary Clinton -- former and current New York Times investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. -- have written an article, adapted from their book, on Hillary's 2002 war authorization vote. The piece is already out, and so you don't have to read the entire 18-page article here's what caught our eyes or what we think is new:

-- "Of course, Clinton was tough. And she was experienced. But according to aides and strategists, her insecurity about her public image and her nascent national-security credentials made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to vote no” on the Iraq war authorization.

-- "Bill Clinton served as her main counsel on the Iraq war vote, longtime associates of theirs told us.”

-- As the Washington Post noted earlier from the Gerth-Van Natta book, Clinton might not have read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before she cast her vote. "The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush’s claims more skeptically. ‘I was able to apply caveat emptor,’ Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ‘Most of my colleagues could not.’”

-- "[O]n the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the [Bush] administration.… By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor.”

-- "For all the scrutiny of Clinton’s vote, an important moment has been lost. It came several hours earlier, on Oct. 10, 2002, the same day Clinton spoke about why she would support the Iraq-war authorization. In her remarks on the Senate floor, she stressed the need for diplomacy with Iraq on the part of the Bush administration and insisted she wasn’t voting for ‘any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for unilateralism.’ Yet just a few hours after her speech, Clinton voted against an amendment to the war resolution that would have required the diplomatic emphasis that Clinton had gone on record as supporting — and that she now says she had favored all along…. Clinton has never publicly explained her vote against the Levin amendment or said why she stayed on the sidelines as 11 other senators debated it for 95 minutes that day."

-- "In February 2005, Clinton took a second trip to Iraq and delivered a somewhat upbeat assessment about the progress being made and the chances for peace, despite mounting evidence that the insurgency was gaining momentum.”

-- "Not surprisingly, the first signal of Clinton’s intention to tack [to the antiwar side] came via Bill Clinton, who had taken on the role of saying things that Senator Clinton was not yet prepared to say. Addressing students at the American University in Dubai on Nov. 16, 2005, the former president declared that the invasion was a ‘big mistake.’ He added that he didn’t ‘agree with what was done.’"

-- Clinton surprisingly wound up co-sponsoring the 2006 Reed-Levin amendment. When it was introduced on the Senate floor, she wanted to be heard: "Clinton’s first words took some insiders by surprise: ‘I rise in support of the Levin amendment of which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor.’ ‘We were puzzled,’ the aide said, because no one had told them about Clinton’s sudden ascendancy to a leadership role on the measure. Indeed, just a few minutes earlier, Jack Reed, in his remarks, had not included Clinton in his list of sponsors.”

-- "In early February, Clinton told the Democratic National Committee that she would end the war in Iraq when she became president. That definitive, forward-looking pledge is what she is counting on voters to remember in 2008."

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

My question to all supporters of Hillary Clinton for President, is this," If she were in no way connected any longer to former President Bill Clinton(seperated, divorced, etc.), and would be in the White House without him, would she still get your vote for President? Be very truthful with yourself.
how long we going to talk about this?
Focus group Bill playing puppet master? I'm shocked. That's OK though being afraid that someone might call you a name, and saying if I knew then what I know now have all become legit excuses for this democrat and others.
What, MK, is this not relevant? If you're not going to judge these candidates on their records, how WOULD you judge them? Based on what they say in the middle of a campaign? Hillary's actions speak louder than any words could... This woman will do and say whatever it takes to satisfy her raw ambition.
Hmmm... let's see -- would 43 be in the White House today if he had not been 41's son -- and Jeb's brother when the votes in Florida were counted? Or aren't such questions supposed to cut both ways?
Well said, Jade, and spot on. The Idiot is in Washington because of Daddy and old school connections (with an able assist from the Electoral College, of course...)
For someone who is outrageously intelligent, she is a complete idiot when it comes to politics. When she voted for that war, myself and many other fellow Democrats knew that under no circumstance would we ever vote for her in a presidential election. Today she could stand on the podium and say, "I told you so.." but instead she has to explain herself with more lies about being misled. Frankly I would respect her more if she said, "I did it because I was afraid of seeming unpatriotic, and it was a poorly calculated political move." If the Democratic party is dumb enough to annoint her as our candidate, good luck to them. They won't have my vote.
Hillary for S-M black widow queen but not for POTUS. She is evil personified. Besides, she has a retractable leg and four arses.
"lies about being misled" Yes, yes - lies about being misled. Bush was truthful above reproach, and nobody was lied to.
Cherry picking from a book by two authors who have done hit jobs on the Clinton's before is not journalism- Hillary Clinton is not evil-she is on the Democratic team- We are destroying our party by tearing apart candidates=especially Hillary. Use the vitriol towards those who truly deserve it-the entire Bush administration. Get a grip-we need to stick together- The fact that these authors are all about making money on HIllary Clinton is not lost on me- Please- for the sake of our future-cut the name calling-we need grown-ups who can go to primary sources and cut through the spin- It's much too important to treat like a game-
And let's not forget that Daddy got into office on Prescott's contacts and Herbie Walker's cash. And the most ludicrous lie this family tells, and perhaps even believes, is that they are self-made men.
Hillary is absolutely no different than any other candidate running ----why is raw politics not thrown at the others that are running for president?Hillary seems to be able to stand up to more raw-meat books that all the republicans throw at her.Lets see how tough the men the men are-----probably will cry like Boner.Wah--wah--wah---
Hillary has the best advisor anyone could wish for...she has for former president. All this BS as to how she voted and where she stands now is rubish. She is not about the give the right the amo that they so desperately want which is to play back on the attack ads that " I made a mistake " and then follow that with ... " Do we really want a president who admits she made a misake on what was the most important vote of her career?" Wake up people!
How can you tell when Bush is lying? His lips are moving.
It's about time that someone take HRC to task on her war vote. I'm glad that her actions leading upto- and after- the vote are being scrutinized. Thus far she has been given a pass from the media and political pundits. This piece by the NY Times reinforces my view that HRC's presidency( if she's elected) will be as ineffective as GW Bush's. Therefore, the Dems and American people have a responsibility that a publicity-seeking, ineffective candidate does not get nominated. I speak as a democrat who is yearning for a change in the status-quo...not another relic from the past.
In 2002 the times were different and this country was ruled by the politics of fear. What would people have have said back then if Hillary didn't vote for the bill? At least she is one to accept her mistakes and try to correct the path now. That is more than I can say for this administration. I support her direction now. This war has cost over $340 billion to date. According to the Borgen Project World Bank, it costs just $19 billion annually to end starvation and malnutrition or just $23 billion annually to reverse the spread of Malaria and AIDS. Wouldn't aiding in the development of countries and supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end poverty be a better plan for attacking extremism and aiding in development?
I would support Hillary for President the day after Hell freezes over.
No, folks, Hillary is not the same as every other politician. SHE is a woman and this absolutely terrifies certain people. They will swear to God that the fact that SHE is running for president has nothing to do with them not liking her. To a large percentage of those persons I say BS!! To some people, male or female, there is nothing more terrifiying than an intelligent and ambitious female(GASP!)For some reason its OK for men to be that way-but not a woman and especially not a bossy and shrill sounding as certain journalists are already calling her.I hope she wins.
bberger -- "Our party, right or wrong", huh? You guys sound more like Bushistas every day. They want us to wait until September or later to make up our minds about the surge; you want us to wait until September or later to make up our minds about your appeasement tactics. They find legitimate criticism unbearable, offensive, and destructive, and so do you. You both are putting out the same message: 'Shut up and let your betters handle things. The war is going to continue whether you like it or not because serious money is being made here, so stop insisting that we jump through hoops pretending we give a rat's own ass what you think or what happens to our GIs while we stage our sham "two-party system" charade.' If you saw this on cable, America, you'd have it figured out by the end of the first half hour.
Many of the Dems here are nothing but whiners. some should remember that W has an MBA from an Ivy school and you do not get those handed to you. All of you who hate should find a way to get over losing. Can any of you tell us why Hillary will not show us her tax return? Maybe she learned that from Slick Willy who refused to show his medical history. Snort snort?
opus dopus
I really don't care who the democratic candidate for president is. I'll vote for that candidate. I am so tired of the republicans in the top tier. The only republicans I like are Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel, and they won't get nominated by the republicans. They are too independently minded.
As a Democrat, I cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton. Whether or not the tell all books are right or not, she has demonstrated a centrist tendency with which I do not agree. Edwards has also drifted left after a rather centrist career in the Senate, including questionable attitude towards gays. Obama is the only one I trust. He has had the courage to say what he thinks all along, most of which (but not all) I agree with. We'll have to watch him slowly creep up in the polls as other folks get to know him better and realize he is the one with the most integrity and politics we can all live with.
I just don't want a republican in the executive office, with the exception of Ron Paul. But do you think the republicans would nominate him? No way.
I support candidate such as Senator Hillary who recognizes that this war was a mistake and is willing to take action and change the course of this country.  According to the Borgen Project, whose goal is to fight global poverty, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to end world hunger.  However, the war in Iraq has already costs the American peoeple $340 billion dollars and counting.  It is time for this country to have a leader willing to take the lead and bring forthfront the critical issues that the global community faces today.
its not about being a republican or a democrat! why do people still get wrapped up with that? you can even tell them apart today. I do not care if Hilary is a woman. As a woman, I feel ashame that many of my friends are voting for her because of her sex. not that i doubt her for her sex, because as a politician she is smart and I will even say a master at her craft. However, the problems should concern us more than if she is woman or a repblican or what ever she is. Politics is all a show.SHE is a liar and it doesnt surprise me...politicians..the only thing that I am concerned about is the health care system..and there is no way that she gets my vote..regardless, our votes dont count-electoral
If she wins,,which I doubt, all that I am looking forward to is for another scandal like her husband's. \


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=209010

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google