On Oct. 11, 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) cast her vote in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, better known now as the Iraq War Resolution. She did so along with 28 other Democrats and 49 Republicans.
Among those 28 Democrats was Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), whose presidential campaign was brought down by, among other things, that very vote. Not only could he not make himself heard over the jeering of the Bush campaign's intern dressed as a dolphin, but he moreover could not explain why he cast that vote and then later criticized the war.
Like Kerry, Clinton was for the war before she was against it. But so was nearly a third of the country. Luckily for us, no private citizens had to cast a career-defining vote in 2002. None of us were presented with a yes-or-no question that would be recorded in the annals of government, a black or white choice in a huge gray morass of options.
Clinton was. She voted yes.
Since then, Clinton has endured a veritable barrage of criticism regarding that vote, mainly from her Democratic rivals and the left wing of the Democratic Party. They have painted Clinton as a warmonger, a Bush-like hawk who, like the President, turns a blind eye to the destruction in Iraq and is too arrogant to apologize for being wrong.
This argument rests on the assumption that Clinton voted for the authorization because she supported sending troops into Iraq in a unilateral, preemptive bid for war. But the validity of this assumption is weak at best.
On Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate before casting her vote. Addressing President Bush, she said, "a unilateral attack ... on the present facts is not a good option." She pointed out that "bipartisan support for this resolution [would make] success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore war less likely." She wanted to approach "the UN for a strong resolution that ... calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq."
"My vote," she concluded, "is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption, or for unilateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose - all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."
In trying to support tough diplomacy and national security, Clinton was faced with two options: yes or no. To vote no was to helplessly throw up her hands at the Iraq question. To vote yes was to vote in favor of cooperation with the UN, continued diplomacy with Iraq and a pragmatic, rational method of dealing with Saddam Hussein.
According to the text of the resolution, Clinton's yes vote was a vote for "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means." It was a vote to "strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." It was a vote to "work with the United Nations Security Council" to "continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations."
And yes, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of war. There is no misreading that element. Of course Bush was going to use the resolution to send troops into Iraq. If he knew then what he knows now, he might not have chosen to do so.
But Clinton, then as now, wanted to pursue further diplomacy. She wanted to work with the UN to solve the very real problem of Saddam's military dictatorship. She hoped - na'vely, maybe, and certainly incorrectly - that the Bush administration would not start the war that they did. But she only had two options: yes or no.
It is also worthwhile to note that, like Clinton, Kerry and so many other legislators, many private citizens were for the war before they were against it. According to a CBS poll in March 2003, 69 percent of Americans believed that invading Iraq was the correct action to take.
Constitutionally, legislators are obligated to vote the way their constituents desire. This alone seems as though it should exempt Clinton, Kerry and the rest from apologizing. We the people haven't had to apologize, even though of that original 69 percent only around 40 percent responded the same way to a CBS poll now, four and a half years later.
Like it or not, we are the government, and we make mistakes. Apologizing to us is sort of like apologizing to the guy who shot you in the face because he thought you were a quail.
Be that as it may, however, criticizing Hillary Clinton for refusing to apologize for her vote is a waste of energy. For her to apologize would be to apologize for voting for what still may have been the best option for the Iraq problem in 2003: cooperation with the UN, strengthened diplomacy and the threat, if not the actual use, of the armed forces.
But at the end of the day, who even has time for apologies? Where do apologies get us? What we want now is an answer to the problem at hand. Let's try to focus on that. There's a real debate about Iraq to be had here, and it's not about who voted how, or if at all, on Oct. 11, 2002.
Rachel Knecht is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
