AMY GOODMAN: In the Senate, one of those who spoke up for the war resolution was New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite the overwhelming number of constituent calls she got against war. Among the voices excluded from the debate in the mainstream media have been everyday people. Today, Democracy Now! breaks the sound barrier by bringing some of the protesters inside — well, not literally, but you’ll hear Hillary Rodham Clinton’s comments interspersed with those of protesters who stood outside her office in New York while she was addressing the Senate. Among those who spoke out was author and education activist Jane Hirschmann and journalist Laura Flanders. We begin with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day, especially this one.

PROTESTERS: Peace now! Peace now! Peace now! What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now! What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Well, when I said, “How many phone calls are you getting a day here? And what — you know, how many pro-war, how many against war?” they said, “Well, we can’t really tell. I mean, there are a lot against war, but, you know, Hillary thinks that a lot of the pro-war people aren’t calling her.” They did a poll of 10 Republicans’ offices and 10 Democrats’, and the overwhelming majority of people, 90%, on both the Republican side and the Democratic side, said they did not want this strike on Iraq.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: On no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: Fourteen people got arrested here on Monday, just for handing out leaflets. They never even got in the building.

AMY GOODMAN: Jane Hirschmann.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: That’s democracy at work. You can’t even hand out a leaflet that says what you’re for or against.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people. Unfortunately, during the 1980s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. 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.

LAURA FLANDERS: If indeed there is a threat of Saddam Hussein —

AMY GOODMAN: Laura Flanders.

LAURA FLANDERS: — ever acquiring nuclear weapons, well, that’s because we have a nuclear arms race that this administration has done everything it can to unleash. This administration has opposed nuclear arms control, has opposed disarmament pacts between the two most nuclear nations, and at this moment is looking away while an arms race spirals out of control between India and Pakistan. So, I think a lot of New Yorkers need to think more deeply about the president’s rhetoric about Saddam’s threat and think more broadly about how do we, as a world, stop the escalation of the nuclear threat, ours as well as everyone else’s.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Now, this much is undisputed.

AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: The ultimate questions are: What should we do about it? How, when and with whom? Now, some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milošević, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out, and led to his being in the dock, being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So, Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out on the present facts, is not a good option.

Now, others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. Now, this, too, has great appeal, for different reasons. The U.N. deserves our support. Whenever possible, we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security. And when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The U.N. can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation, and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach, as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto on occasion for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the U.N. for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

I know that the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization 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. resolutions, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply but forcefully calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position, and we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements, giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want. I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial.

After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today, he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it.

LAURA FLANDERS: Well, the president has failed to make any connection that holds up between Saddam Hussein and September 11th. And today, we were reminded that even people inside the CIA think that his speech in Cincinnati overstated connections that are debatable at best, outright denied by large portions of our intelligence community.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth from the administration since they first began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. 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. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore war less likely, and because a good-faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: If this is what democracy looks like, that is what hypocrisy looks like.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: 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.

JANE HIRSCHMANN: We are going to stay in this office. We’re going to have people coming by day and night. We’re going to put the word out immediately that you are not listening to your constituents. And if you think you’re going to get elected ever again in this state, forget it, lady.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: My vote 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. Over 11 years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever, with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the president to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a senator from New York, who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting.

PROTESTER: You know, we’re complaining about the terrorism that happened to us on September 11th, and we’re just going to go into another country without discussing with anyone else from the U.N. and just terrorize. That’s what we’re going to do. Innocent civilians. I mean, it’s going to backfire. It’s going to backfire. And we need to respect other countries. We need to start talking. We need to start unifying instead of separating ourselves.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: So, it is with conviction that 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 our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed. Thank you, Mr. President.

AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then those outside. You are listening to Democracy Now! As we go to break, we will return with the opposition. We will hear from West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Stay with us.