Washington Journal today said: original vote to authorize Iraq war was 98/2. Whats's up with that?

[Democrats_win]

(With Wellstone and Feingold being the two against.)

What's up with Washington Journal? Were they talking about something different?
Did you see this?

This is contrary to the 77 to 23 tally given on the U.S. Senate Website:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

Thanks for your input.

[hfojvt]

1. are they talking about Afghanistan?

That sounds more likely.

[Democrats_win]

2. Oh, that could be the case. Yes that makes sense. Thanks.

[CJCRANE]

4. They were definitley talking about the IWR

but maybe the host mixed up his figures.

[hfojvt]

6. Or was there a vote after 9/11

giving the President sort of open-ended authority to go after the perpetrators? Which this person thinks means Iraq?

[Kagemusha]

7. In a word, yes.

I think the Bush admin argued that no separate vote was required for going into Iraq to begin with. ..But they say lots of things.

[Puregonzo1188]

5. Out of curiosty, who were the two who voted against Afghanistan?

[TabulaRasa]

9. Nobody voted against Afghanistan in the senate

Barbara Lee was the only one in the house.

[CJCRANE]

3. Yes I saw it. Strange.

I also noticed that a Republican caller claimed that the Clinton admistration, when handing over to the incoming * crew, warned that the biggest issue would be Iraq. No one corrected her but it was actually "al-Qaeda/terrorism" that Bushco were warned about NOT IRAQ.

on edit: added al-Qaeda

[CJCRANE]

8. A sidenote;

Another interesting comment from a Republican caller, this time about Giuliani's adultery: "hate the sin but love the sinner".

Funny how the Republicans never said that about Clinton...