A response to defenders of Hillary's Iraq record

Lately there have been some interesting attempts at defending Hillary's Iraq record. I am going to address a few of them.

Defense 1: Obama can't criticize Hillary because of Ted Kennedy

Here's how this one goes: Obama can't complain about Hillary's Iraq record because Ted Kennedy's record is very much like Hillary's. Consequently, Obama really can't complain about Hillary's record.

This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

If anyone has a problem, it's Ted Kennedy, not Obama.

Under this argument, Obama's actual record does not matter because Ted Kennedy's record is now Obama's. And since Ted Kennedy voted like Hillary, that means that Obama's record is just like Hillary's. Don't you see?

This sort of "reasoning" could be termed a syllogism, but since it is so ridiculous, I am going to call it a "Hillogism." The definition of this term will be ongoing, but for now let's just say its applies to all of the bullshit presented by Hillary and her supporters.

[I just did Google and Yahoo searches for "Hillogism" and found it used--without a definition--only once. And the mention was in a thread whose contributors seemed to be Hillary supporters, so I don't think they would be using my definition.]

Defense 2: The Levin Amendment is open to interpretation.

• If it is open to interpretation, it clearly cannot be interpreted as Hillary does.
  

This defense has to be examined in the specific context of what Hillary has said about the Levin Amendment. As shown in the previous post, here is Hillary's currently official position on her website:

The Levin amendment specifically said that the "President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States" but only "pursuant to a resolution of the United Nation Security Counsel."

*******

The language of the Levin Amendment would have made it the law of the land that the President could not act without Security Council approval.

(emphasis added). The term "but only" is not in the Levin Amendment. It has been added by Hillary. The question is whether the language of the Levin Amendment could reasonably be given Hillary's interpretation. And the answer is an unequivocal "NO." Once again, here is the relevant part of the Levin Amendment:

Congress--

********

(2) urges the United Nations Security Council to adopt promptly a resolution that--

(A) demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access of the United Nations weapons inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons- usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities are destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless; and

(B) authorizes the use of necessary and appropriate military force by member states of the United Nations to enforce such resolution in the event that the Government of Iraq refuses to comply;

(3) affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense; and

(4) will not adjourn sine die this year and will return to session at any time before the next Congress convenes to consider promptly proposals relative to Iraq if in the judgment of the President the United Nations Security Council fails to adopt or enforce the resolution described in paragraph (2).

(emphasis added). Subsection (2) of the Levin Amendment "urge(d)" the Security Council to adopt and enforce a resolution regarding Iraq. It did NOT say that the Security Council was required to pass such resolution before the US could act. It does NOT say that the US could not act "without Security Council approval."

Indeed, subsections (3) and (4) made it clear that the U.S. in general and the President in particular could have acted "without Security Council approval." Let's look at what the UN Charter says. The pertinent portion is Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This provision does not require Security Council approval before a nation can use force in self-defense. However, it can be argued that Article 51 would allow the Security Council to have some effect on US actions after the fact. Even if that is true, it is irrelevant for two reasons. First, given that the US was (and is) a member of the UN, to the extent Article 51 could have been used to somehow affect US action, that capacity would have existed regardless of anything passed or not passed by the Congress. The second reason for the irrelevancy is subsection (4). Note that subsection (4) in no way said that Bush needed "Security Council approval" in order to go before Congress. Indeed, subsection (4) held that Bush could go to Congress at any time AND that Bush would have the sole discretion as to whether to do so.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. The IWR also gave Bush sole discretion, so how is the Levin Amendment any different? The difference is that the IWR gave Bush the sole discretion and authority to commit the country to war, while the Levin Amendment would have required Congressional approval. That is a huge freaking difference.

In other words, the Levin Amendment would have placed a limitation on Bush's power, but that limitation was not in the hands of the UN Security Council. Rather, it was in the hands of Congress. Under the clear language of subsections (3) and (4), the Security Council would not have been given any authority over the US in general or Bush in particular. Thus, in the context of Hillary's official position, the Levin Amendment was not open to interpretation.

• And here's another observation about Hillary's position.

Again, Hillary's official position is that

The language of the Levin Amendment would have made it the law of the land that the President could not act without Security Council approval.

(emphasis added). She does not say that the problem is that the power of the United States to act would have been limited. She said only that the power of the President would have been limited. Wow. This simply and plainly proves something I said in the previous post, namely that Hillary wants the same power to do what she wants without having to get Congressional approval, AND I noted that this is "yet another way she is just like George W. Bush."

Hillary wants power, power, and more power. That, not leadership, is her goal.

Defense 3: Hillary is just like Russ Feingold.

• Feingold's position on the Levin Amendment and Hillary's claim
  

The Hillary web page also included what Russ Feingold said during the debate on the Levin Amendment as proof that Hillary's interpretation was and is correct.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin's alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration's proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Hillary is in effect saying that Russ Feingold agrees with her interpretation of the Levin Agreement.

• Hillary has misconstrued Feingold's opposition to the Levin Amendment.
  

To the extent that Feingold was agreeing with what Hillary now says, he was and is wrong.

However, if Hillary supporters want to claim the Levin Amendment is open to interpretation, then so is the above statement from Feingold.

I will begin such interpretation by noting I think it is safe to say that Russ Feingold was and still is the greatest anti-Iraq war official in the entire Congress. And he always has been. With that in mind, let's look at some excerpts from the speech he delivered in the Senate on October 9, 2002.

An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.

*******

Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

*******

What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President, all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.

An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.

(emphasis added). So, based on the case that had been presented as of October 9, 2002, Feingold felt that 1) a war with Iraq could be counterproductive to the war on terrorism, and 2) such a war would overextend our military resources. Furthermore, Feingold was not going to vote for the IWR unless questions were answered about what would be done about Iraq's purported WMD and how the post-war period would be handled.

Now, consider that the case that had been presented as of October 9, 2002, did not change by the following day, which is when Feingold made his statements about the Levin Amendment.

Now, let's review part of what Feingold said about the Levin Amendment:

But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

(emphasis added). Now compare the emphasized portion of the above excerpt with the excerpts from Feingold's October 9 speech, paying particular attention to the emphasized portions thereof. Such a comparison will show very close similarities.

Based on his words from October 9 and 10, 2002, I believe that Feingold was against voting for war in any form until his concerns were addressed and his questions answered. The concerns and questions he raised on October 9 were the same ones he raised on October 10. Thus, I submit that the following:

• The overall reason he voted against the Levin Amendment was NOT because he felt it granted the Security Council the power to prevent the US from going to war, but rather because he felt it might enable the Security Council to cause the US to go to war without answering his concerns and questions.
  
• In other words, Feingold was not concerned about having to get Security Council approval before the US could use military force. What he was concerned about was the possibility of the Security Council taking action which could have required the US to use military force before his concerns were addressed.
  
• Stated another way, Feingold was not worried about the Security Council acting as a limitation on America's power to decide to go to war. Feingold was worried about the Security Council acting as a limitation on America's power to choose NOT to go to war.

I submit further that Feingold would have voted against ANY resolution which would have left open the possibility that the US could have gone to war with Iraq without first answering his questions and concerns.

Think I am wrong? Well, step up and explain yourself. And you better bring your "A" game.

• Hillary's reliance on Feingold provides proof for something else I have said about her earlier.

In my post about Wes Clark's endorsement of Hillary, I basically said that Hillary has never taken responsibility for her own actions regarding Iraq, and her reliance on Feingold's opposition to the Levin Amendment simply provides more evidence for my opinion. Instead of truly owning up to her vote against the Levin agreement, she blatantly misstates what the amendment said, and then she points to Feingold's position as if to say, "I don't have to explain myself because Russ Feingold opposed it, too." Now there's some real leadership for you. Using Feingold as a means to avoid explaining her own actions also provides more evidence for what I wrote about her back in September 2007:

Listen folks--this is not about focusing on one substantive issue while ignoring Hillary's other experience and abilities. This is about her personality and character. A Senator certainly has a duty to make decisions and accept responsibility, but that duty is far greater for the President. Hillary's refusal, as a Senator, to accept responsibility for her actions and decisions on a matter as crucial as war says to me that she is not going to accept the increased responsibility as President--not just on matters of war, but on everything.

Hey, Democrats--are you listening?