The 2002 AUMF vote is often pitched as some kind of critical moment in American history, or as a litmus test for whether or not a politician is a war monger. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Bush was always going to war, with or without the 2002 AUMF. This was confirmed by the Downing Street Memos in 2005. It is confirmed by any number of sources from within the Cabinet and Pentagon and even CIA.
However, at the time there seemed to be a path towards peace. This was in the form of a new Security Council resolution that would require unfettered, unlimited access by UN weapons inspectors. It was believed by many that if they found any programs, those programs could be dismantled peacefully, and if no programs were found, there would be no support for war.
GW Bush encouraged this belief. He asked the Congress to pass an authorization that would demonstrate American unity to the Security Council and Saddam, in order to overcome the holdouts in the Security Council blocking such measures and Saddam's unwillingness to comply. He gave a speech on 10/7/2002 laying out his public rationale in opposing Saddam, and explaining why he had asked for the AUMF. "Approving this resolution does not mean military action is immanent, or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice, and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only chance, his only choice, is full compliance. And that the time remaining for that choice is limited." (If you can stand to spend that much time with the Shrub again, his full speech is here .
Everything about the actions called for in the AUMF were in relation to getting Iraq to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, including the new one. This is the meat of the Authorization (it is 6 pages. Most of it is background outlining every possible opinion on Saddam's history.):
OCT. 16, 2002
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to-
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.
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 Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(note that it doesn't say "Go invade Iraq!)
Hillary Clinton gave her speech on her reasoning concerning the vote three days later, on 10/10/2002. I encourage everyone to go watch both parts: Part 1 Part 2. It will take 20 minutes, and it is a very good speech.
It is abundantly clear that she was not voting for war. You will find that is true of practically all Democrats who voted yes on the AUMF. Lets break the speech down:
1) We are here to vote to give the president authority to use military force should diplomatic methods fail.
2) Dissent on this measure is good, and shows our strength as a democracy. I respect all of the opinions opposing the resolution. They may be correct.
3) It is indisputable that Saddam is a monster. Our monster, supported in the 80's by the US (read: Reagan and Bush I administrations).
4) Bush I did not protect the Shia and Kurds after the war initially (twist the knife a little more).
5) The UN imposed many restrictions on Saddam, including weapons inspections and no fly zones to keep him from being a jerk. The inspectors found ridiculous quantities of WMD and programs to make more and worse weapons.
6) Saddam tried to get sanctions lifted by disallowing inspections in 1998. US policy became regime change, not just containment. The inspectors withdrew (note: they were asked to by the US), and President Clinton bombed all suspected sites (note: along with a lot of air defense systems and centers of Baathist authority)
7) In the 4 years since the last inspections, intelligence indicates Saddam has rebuilt. (She accepts Bush's intelligence reports.)
8) Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11.
9) If Saddam gets WMD again, it will suck for everyone.
10) Unilateral invasion and regime change is not the answer. It would kill our credibility, and leave Iraq a wreck. Hey, remember how awesome Bill was on this kind of policy to remove Milosovic?
11) It would be great to depend on UN alone, but the Security Council is full of jerks. When it cannot get the job done, coalitions can be built without it for just causes.
12) I believe we can get the UN Security Council to remove the 1998 UN restrictions on inspectors and institute an unfettered inspection regime. They will not give Bush Carte Blanche to invade. This has a chance to build up the reputation and effectiveness of the UN.
13) If Saddam complies, it will result in the removal of all WMD without war. Regime change will have to come later.
14) If Saddam refuses, we will be able to build a real coalition to get the job done and rebuild Iraq.
15) If the Security Council blocks it, we will have the moral authority to build a coalition (like we did in Bosnia).
16) Going to war is bad. If Hussein does have weapons, he will have every reason to use them. Better to have allies who can help us rebuild Iraq, and discourage him from using WMD. We cannot do this unilaterally.
17) Bush has toned down the war rhetoric. His recent speech makes clear he wants to go through the UN. This resolution is not perfect, but I think it empowers him to do the right thing to disarm Iraq without war. I take him at his word he will work through the UN.
18)I believe the measure must pass with real bi-partisan support to convince the Security Council to create the new resolution.
19) This vote is hard, and it should be. But I respect the office of the President which I was next to for 8 years. I want Hussein to give into inspections. And I want the military to know that if they do have to invade, all of America is united behind them.
20) This is not a vote for pre-emption, unilateralism, or any other dumb thing the Republicans have advocated.
21) Saddam has been playing a long game with WMD. It needs to end.
22) War can be avoided. I am voting to call on Bush to go to the UN.
23) As a senator from New York which just lost so many to terrorism, my constituents are telling me to take the threat seriously.
24) This is not a vote to go to war. This is a vote telling the president that war is the last resort if diplomacy fails. The goal is only disarmament.
She could not be more clear in her goals or intention. Resolve this without war. Use the UN.
So lets knock down some myths. Since zombie lies now infest dKos, I'm sure that they will never truly go away, but these things are very important both to truly understand the second Gulf War AND the current political primary.
1) Hillary's vote was not to go to war. It was to get UN inspectors into Iraq to prevent war.
2) The vote did exactly what it was supposed to: inspectors went into Iraq, found no WMD. That should have been the end of it.
3) Bush pulled out the inspectors when it was obvious they would not find anything, and called the lack of evidence a justification for war.
4) Bush was always going to invade Iraq. This has been demonstrated in any number of ways. Voting down the 2002 AUMF could not have changed that. The blood of the Iraq war is on the hands of the Bush Administration. Hillary could have had no impact on the outcome; nor could any member of Congress.
5) Hillary did begrudgingly trust Bush's motives and intelligence. You can see the distaste every time she mentions trusting him in the speech. That may have been naive or stupid on her part. But she also had more respect than most for the Office of the President because of her 8 years as part of it, and had the people of New York as her constituents saying "Never Again" after 9-11.
These things need to be explained to any of the people duped into believing Hillary's vote was some great litmus test that proves her a warmonger, or that it was all her fault that Bush invaded. Her speech on the subject makes clear what her motives were, and the enormous amount of thought she put into her vote. Ultimately, her vote was not even wrong; technically, it worked and should have prevented the war.
