Politics

Clinton’s Stance on the Iraq War Amendment

I found Hillary Clinton’s discussion about her vote against the Levin amendment to the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 during the Thursday night Democratic presidential debate riveting. Finally the moderators were asking a truly interesting and relevant question, and in front of millions of Americans Hillary was getting the opportunity to share with us the thought processes that resulted in the following actions; a vote against the Levin amendment, followed that same night by a vote for the Iraq War Resolution.

As I listened to her describe her decisions and the rationale behind them I had the strange sensation that I was listening to George Bush defending his decision to act swiftly and unilaterally against Sadam Hussein. I couldn’t believe I was actually hearing her trying to defend these decisions when they were so clearly misinformed, and their consequences so devastating. This behavior so closely mimics the behavior of George Bush, who still refuses to admit how disastrous his initial decision, and every other subsequent decision regarding Iraq has been, that it makes me extremely nervous about the prospect of the Clintons returning to the White House.

I was even more concerned when I read the Check Point section of the NY Times this morning. Quoting Senator Clinton’s statement during Thursday night’s debate: “Mrs. Clinton said that she opposed the amendment, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, not because she favored going to war but because it would “subordinate” American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council.”; the article points out that Hillary has been consistent regarding her reasons for rejecting the Levin amendment. The article also quotes her related statements on Meet the Press last month: “The Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don’t believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.”

It appears that Mr. Levin, and supporters of his amendment, do not agree with Hillary’s view about the scope and intent of the amendment asserting that her stance is “simplistic and misleading”. The article goes on to describe the Levin amendment as follows:

The amendment was designed to rein in the president, who many believed was embarked on an inexorable march to war. The measure required two steps. First, the United Nations would have to pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs. Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed and to secure passage of what Mr. Levin called a “going-it-alone unilateral resolution.”

Former Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, who was in the Senate at the time and supported the Levin amendment, wrote last year that the measure was “unambiguous and compatible with international law.”

“Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened,” Mr. Chafee wrote in The New York Times. He said the demand for thorough inspections in Iraq would succeed only if pushed by a broad coalition, including Arab states.

I can only hope that voters will consider all of this very carefully before casting their votes in the Democratic primaries.

P.S. - Just in case you are interested in refreshing your memory, as I was, about who voted for the Levin amendment (to limit the power of the President to attack Iraq), and who voted against the Iraq War Resolution here is that data:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session: Levin Amdt. No. 4862
YEAs —24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
NAYs —23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

© 2008 Life is an Ongoing Process.