If Hillary Didn't Want War in Iraq, Why Did She Vote Against the Levin Amendment?

On October 10, 2002 Hillary Clinton voted to defeat the so-called Levin Amendment. The purpose of this amendment was to limit Bush's powers to declare war on Iraq, and to focus the United States' efforts on locating and destroying weapons of mass destruction. The passage of this amendment would have restricted Bush's ability to declare war on Iraq unless, 1). It was approved of by the UN, or 2). It was approved by a second Congressional vote.

Here is the statement of purpose for this amendment:



Hillary voted "Nay" to this amendment, but voted for HR-114, which gave Bush broad powers to authorize the use force in Iraq.

If Hillary, she now claims, voted for the war specifically to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction, why did she vote against the Levin amendment? If Hillary was, as she now claims, concerned that Bush might abuse his powers to use force on Iraq, why did she vote against the Levin amendment? If Hillary wanted Bush to pursue all diplomatic options, why did she vote against the Levin Amendment?

Here's an excerpt about why Hillary voted for Iraq:



Wouldn't the best "assurance" have been the passage of the Levin Amendment?

Here's a must-read Op-Ed by Chafee on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html

"The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice"


So Hillary, I'm holding you accountable. Why did you vote against the Levin Amendment?


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/index.cfm?topic=iraqletter
http://www.radioopensource.org/hillary-clintons-war-vote/

Just curious.

She explained that today on MTP. You should watch it if you can.

...In the event that the UN did not approve of force.

This would have given Hillary the chance to reevaluate the use of force after Bush's attempts at diplomacy. If she was so concerned about Bush's powers that she repeatedly sought personal "assurance" from him, why wouldn't she pass this amendment which would have guaranteed her those assurances?

The Levin Amendment would have required another vote by congress to authorize a war. It would have bought some time during the rush to war. Congress, of course, could have voted for an authorization regardless of what the UN did....it could have passed another resolution! As in DUH! So the arguement is totally bs that Levin would have subordinated us to the UN.

In my view, hillary's vote on the IWR was not nearly as damning as her vote against the Levin Amendment. There WERE some who voted for the IWR and also FOR the Levin....but not Hillary.

That is an EXCELLENT point!

She says that she didn't vote for an amendment that would've (in hindsight) kept us out of Iraq because word on the street was that it would compromise US ability to declare war on it own. Yet, that amendment specifically states a provision to allow the US to declare war on its own.

There's a glaring discrepancy in her statements and thousands of US troops dead in Iraq. Why wouldn't you demand a clarification of her position?

Just because Hillary or Obama or whoever "says" something, doesn't make it so. It's our duty as citizens to make them prove that it is...

The Levin Amendment would have required the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. This would set a precident for all future presidents to first secure UN approval for military operations which would be, of course, unconstitutional.

It specifically provides for a second vote of congress that could also authorize the war.

If Hillary believes otherwise, then she either did not read the amendment -or- she's wrong.

ETA: I do appreciate you taking the time to have this debate, however.

It urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a new resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. If Iraq failed to comply with the new resolution, Congress would then vote again to authorized U.S. use of force.

So, even though Iraq had already violated the UN resolution on inspectors, which opened the door for the use of force, the Levin Amendment would have had the Congress vote on the Levin Amendment, which would urge the UN to adopt a NEW resolution. Then if Saddam didn't comply with that new one, the president would have to come back congress for a new vote.

And that ain't just hindsight talking.

The Levin Amendment would have required the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. This would set a precident for all future presidents to first secure UN approval for military operations which would be, of course, unconstitutional.

UN approval was not a requirement.

Did you read Chafee's OP-ED? Do you disagree with his intrepretation as well?

"The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice" Chaffee's OP-ED says it all. She wanted war and voted for it.

her work on behalf of children is meaningless - useless. Corporations don't care what they do to children. Certain corporations and Clinton allow war. Some corporations seek war, some partner in war, some hire lobbyists for war. There are multiple 'therefores' for me.

She needs to be honest and say, "Hey I figured that it would be a bad move for a New York Senator to be perceived as anything other than pro-war, post 911. I voted 'yes' to retain my seat, not because I thought it was in the best interests of the nation".

That's really the truth, right?

worse.

"Chickenshithawk". Heh.

whole platform is about dodge and rationalize.

...not a good trait in a President.

But some of us like to like to question what we're told.

The fact is that the spin is wrong. Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she said that the only way to declare war on Iraq after passage of the Levin Amendment would be through the UN. Read the amendment (that's why I provided the link) and read Chafee's op-ed piece.

Think about it a bit.