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)

According to an article in the Quad-City Times, Obama is going to deliver a major policy speech on the Iraq conflict in Clinton, Iowa tomorrow. I liked what Barack had to say during the Senate Hearing with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today, and I look forward to hearing more specific ideas and plans from him.

The address on Iraq, the official said, will include new policy proposals on troop withdrawals, diplomacy in Iraq and the region and ideas about what to do about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. He’ll also talk about his ideas for U.S. leadership in the region after the war, the official said.

Given that definition, who are we at war against in Iraq? The Iraqi state? The Sunnis? The Shites? Al-Qaeda? All of the above? We can’t be at war with Iraq and at the same time claim to be engaged there on the premise of helping them to form a democratic state. The Sunnis and Shites are not ‘states’ or ‘politically organized bodies’. Al-Qaeda is “an international alliance of militant Sunni jihadist organizations” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) founded and headed by Osama bin Laden who, by current accounts is located somewhere in the tribal area in northern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

The slogan, “war on terror” is meaningless. Even a war on terrorism doesn’t make sense. Terrorism is a tool, a means to an end. How about a war on terrorists? That is also hard to rationalize, since terrorists don’t constitute a state or a politically organized body. Perhaps a war on Al-Qaeda, a specific group, who uses terrorism as their main tool, makes the most sense. So if we are at war with Al-Qaeda, why are we occupying Iraq, when the headquarters of Al-Qaeda is located in Afghanistan-Pakistan?

There is only one answer that makes logical sense to me: oil. It seems clear that the Iraqi oil reserves are the reason why we are fighting the “War on Terror” in Iraq. That fact, sadly, is never spotlighted by the media, nor is it a focus of debate in the Senate when discussing the occupation (“war”) of Iraq.

Until America comes clean about why we are really engaged in the civil war in Iraq, we cannot even have a meaningful debate about redeploying our troops out of Iraq and deploying them for the purpose of fighting Al-Qaeda.

POST UPDATE (7/20/2007): I didn’t stay up to listen to the entire Iraq war debate in the Senate this past Tuesday night, but it was interesting to see that the topic of Iraq’s vast oil reserves did get mentioned during that debate. Here is what Senator Craig (R-ID) said with regard to Iraq’s oil supply and its relationship to America’s ‘national security’:

But the other consequence, Mr. President, that we’ve not talked about is what happens when 54 percent of the world’s oil supply goes to risk with a collapse of the region. And this is a reality check that we only talk about in hushed terms, because we don’t like to talk about our dependency on a part of the world that is so unstable…

What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

The facts are, Mr. President, that the war we are fighting in Iraq has serious and real national security implications and we cannot prejudge our best and brightest military commanders by playing politics with their duties and best judgement. We should not preempt General Petraeus’s progress report coming in September and I hope that the Senate will go on record today as saying we are not a body of generals, we do not know best how to conduct a war and determine how many troops it will take to secure Iraq. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting down Levin-Reed.

Senator Obama’s Plan is outlined in depth in the legislation that he recently introduced to the Senate. There are several other related bills (Feingold, S.448, S.121, Kerry, S.RES.34, Kennedy S.233, Byrd, S.RES.39) that have been offered by other Senators that nicely compliment Obama’s bill (S.433), but Obama’s legislation is the most detailed and comprehensive of them. Click on the link below to see the entire text of the bill.
S.433 Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

The content below, taken from Obama’s Senatorial web site, is a nice summary of the key aspects of the plan.

Key Elements of Obama Plan

• Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.
• De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.
• Enforces Tough Benchmarks for Progress: These 13 benchmarks are based on President Bush’s own statements and Administration documents and include:
  • Security: Significant progress toward fulfilling security commitments, including eliminating restrictions on U.S. forces, reducing sectarian violence, reducing the size and influence of the militias, and strengthening the Iraqi Army and Police.
  • Political Accommodation: Significant progress toward reaching a political solution, including equitable sharing of oil revenues, revision of de-Baathification, provincial elections, even-handed provision of government services, and a fair process for a constitutional amendment to achieve national reconciliation.
  • Economic Progress: Requires Iraq to fulfill its commitment to spend not less than $10 billion for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development without regard for the ethnic or sectarian make-up of Iraqi regions.

  Should these benchmarks be met, the plan allows for the temporary suspension of this redeployment, subject to the agreement of Congress.

• Congressional oversight: Requires the President to submit reports to Congress every 90 days describing and assessing the Iraqi government’s progress in meeting benchmarks and the redeployment goals.
• Intensified Training: Intensifies training of Iraqi security forces to enable the country to take over security responsibility of the country.
• Conditions on Economic Assistance: Conditions future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq on significant progress toward achievement of benchmarks. Allows exceptions for humanitarian, security, and job-creation assistance.
• Regional Diplomacy: Launches a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative – that includes key nations in the region – to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict. Recommends the President should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Mandates that the President submit a plan to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider regional conflict.

How To End The War
Russ Feingold
February 02, 2007

Our founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the president got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, “Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.”

Earlier this week, I chaired a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, through the power of the purse, we have the constitutional power to end a war. At the hearing, a wide range of constitutional scholars agreed that Congress can use its power to end a military engagement.

The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power [to] declare War, [t]o raise and support Armies, [t]o provide and maintain a Navy, and [t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. In addition, under Article I, No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.
Read more >>

Yesterday, Senator Feingold introduced legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the war six months after the enactment of the law. An outline of his legislation can be found here. Senator Feingold also posted a very interesting post on DailyKos yesterday entitled Warner/Levin Resolution a Mistake. This post helped me to understand why there are so many similar resolutions being proposed in the Senate with respect to US military involvement in Iraq, and why both binding and non-binding resolutions are in play. If you are as confused as I am about all of these resolutions and the differences between them, this post is a must read. It is not comprehensive, but it is very informative. The net of Feingold’s message is; “…we shouldn’t make the compromises made in this resolution (Warner/Levin resolution) just to beat a filibuster. Instead of trying to pass something that everyone can get behind, we should be taking a strong stand. If others want to block it, go right ahead. We have the support of a majority of Americans behind us. We should recognize that and act on it.”