War Opponents Dispute Clinton's Account Of Levin Amendment

[Barack_America]

From Huffington Post:

War opponents say Sen. Hillary Clinton is misleading in her explanation about why she voted in 2003 against a bill that would have stalled America's invasion of Iraq.

During Thursday night's debate, the New York Democrat was asked why, if she did not believe the President was insistent on war, she didn't simply vote for a resolution that would have asked the United Nations to approve authorization of force against Saddam Hussein. Clinton responded that such a resolution -- which was sponsored by Michigan Senator Carl Levin -- would have made the president's authority "subordinate" to the United Nations.

"I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin," she said. "The way that amendment was drafted suggested that the United States would subordinate whatever our judgment might be going forward to the United Nations Security Council. I don't think that was a good precedent. Therefore, I voted against it."

This, war opponents say, is a stretch. Indeed, the Levin amendment - which was defeated by a vote of 24 to 75 - allowed the government to pursue an invasion of Iraq even if the United Nations voted against such a course of action. Congress, the bill read, should "not adjourn" before it "promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution."

Levin himself said as much in an October speech on the Senate floor. "My resolution affirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense, affirming the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action," he said.

There's also a (Freudian?) typo in the concluding paragraph.

Last night, Senator Clinton was not asked a follow up to the question about the Levin amendment. Bush she repeated a statement she has repeatedly made on the campaign trail. "If I had known then what I know now," she declared, "I never would have given President Bush the authority. It was a sincere vote based on my assessment at the time and what I believed he would do with the authority he was given."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/01/war-opponents-dispute-cli_n_84485.html">More


So Hill, why did you vote against the Levin Amendment? Couldn't have had anything to to with political ambition, could it?

[DJ13]

1. I expect this kind of excuse from a Right Winger, but NOT a Democrat-

"Clinton responded that such a resolution -- which was sponsored by Michigan Senator Carl Levin -- would have made the president's authority "subordinate" to the United Nations."


Thats straight out of Newt Gingrich's playbook.

:eyes:

[Barack_America]

2. Agreed. But then again who was she "playing" with at the time?

I think it's pretty clear whose side she was on.

I know that I keep bringing up the Levin Amendment, but it was a golden opportunity missed. And as long as Hillary insists on misleading people about it, I'll keep trying to set the record straight.

After all, Carl Levin has been one of my all-time heroes since I was a teenager, and I'm damn proud of the stance that Michigan Democrats took on the war.

[Barack_America]

3. Little kick.

Considering KO is talking about this.

[creeksneakers2]

4. Factcheck.org is with Hillary on this one

I would have been with Levin but the reason Hillary gave for voting against it is a valid one. The OP does not explain that Levin's amendment mandated a second IWR vote if the UN failed to act. Levin's amendment did leave the choice to go to war up to the U.N.

[killbotfactory]

5. She voted for the IWR, and supported the invasion, because she was afraid of looking like a dove

She is also tied at the hip to whatever policy AIPAC is for, and was afraid that the war would be over quickly and she would look foolish if she opposed it.