Why Hillary needs to distract from her record on Iraq (Part 3)

Introduction

This post will examine another of Hillary's explanations as to why she voted for the The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution, otherwise known as the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). More specifically, this post will examine why she did not vote for an amendment thereto that would have required Bush to do certain things before going to war. That amendment was known as the Levin Amendment (named after Sen. Carl Levin, who introduced it).

Hillary's explanation as to why she voted against the Levin Amendment

Hillary explained her decision to vote against the Levin Amendment in her January 13, 2008, appearance on "Meet the Press."

I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The [Levin] amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, 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.

Number two, I have the greatest respect for Senator Levin. He is my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I--immediately after we did have the vote on the authorization, went to work with him to try to make sure that every piece of intelligence we had was given to the U.N. inspectors. And Senator Levin and I sent a letter to Secretary Powell, we pushed that position very hard because we both had the same view that we were going to put inspectors back in and we needed to let the inspectors do the job that they were asked to do.

Number three, I actually joined with Senator Byrd on an amendment that would limit the president's authorization to one year. I was very strongly in favor of limiting what President Bush could do. Unfortunately, that amendment did not pass.

Fourth, it is absolutely unfair to say that the vote as Chuck Hagel, who was one of the architects of the resolution, has said, was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.

(emphasis added). Let's look at reasons 2-4 in reverse order--just to prove a point. Hagel did not draft the IWR. He drafted a different version which was not passed. The Byrd Amendment would have been largely irrelevant because we went to war within six months of the passage of the IWR. The fact that Hillary joined with Levin after the IWR was passed to get inspectors back in is also irrelevant to the question of why Hillary voted for the IWR and against the Levin Amendment.

During the January 31, 2008, debate Hillary did not mention Hagel or working with Levin. I guess she figured out that those "reasons" were worthless. She did, however, bring up the Byrd Amendment, showing that she had not fully grasped the concept of relevancy. And then she repeated the first reason she gave Tim Russert. At the debate she was asked "Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, you could have voted for the Levin amendment which required President Bush to report to Congress about the U.N. inspection before taking military action. Why did you vote against that amendment?" Here was her answer:

Well, Howard, that's an important question. And the reason is because, although I believe strongly that we needed to put inspectors in, that was the underlying reason why I at least voted to give President Bush the authority, put those inspectors in, let them do their work, figure out what is there and what isn't there.

And I have the greatest respect for my friend and colleague, Senator Levin. He's my chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

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.

(emphasis added). After the debate, Hillary gave a more concise explanation on her website:

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. That is a limitation on national sovereignty which Senator Clinton was unprepared to accept as a matter of principle[.]

She added something else to that explanation, but I will address that later.

Now it's time to show that Hillary's reasoning is crap.

The Levin Amendment

Here is the relevant text of the Levin Amendment:

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL POLICY FOR UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION ON IRAQ.

Congress--

(1) supports the President's call for the United Nations to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to meet Iraq's obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of its weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons- usable material, ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 150 kilometers, and related facilities, and to cease the development, production, or acquisition of such weapons, materials, and missiles;

(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). The italicized portion above clearly on its face contradicts Hillary's main reason for voting against the Levin Amendment. Under that language, the United States still had the option to act unilaterally and use military force. Ultimately, the United States was not constrained by or dependent upon "Security Council approval." The only limitation was on the President, and that limitation was that he would have to go to Congress for approval of the use of military force.

Don't believe me? Well, check out what Levin his ownself said about his amendment in the debate of that amendment:

Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.

This amendment provides that if the President then seeks authority to unilaterally go it alone without the authority of the United Nations, not in support of a U.N. resolution, he would then call us back into session and seek that authority from the Congress.

*******

Our resolution affirms that under international law and under the U.N. charter, especially article 51, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense. This affirms the fact that there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action.

I repeat that because some of our colleagues have suggested otherwise about our resolution. The resolution we are offering explicitly affirms the fact there is no U.N. veto over U.S. military action because we state explicitly the United States has at all times an inherent right to use military force in self-defense. Our resolution also provides Congress will not adjourn sine die so that Congress can return to session, if necessary, and promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly act on the resolution I have described above.

(emphasis added). You see, Levin's explanation matches exactly the plain words of the Levin Amendment. And the excuse that Hillary now offers for her vote against the Levin Amendment was expressly addressed and shot down over five years ago. In other words, that excuse was wrong when Hillary voted against the Levin Amendment, and it is still wrong today.

And, by the way, notice that the Levin Amendment expressly said its purpose was to get weapons inspectors back in Iraq. As discussed in Part 1, that was Hillary's primary explanation as to why she voted for the IWR. However, as pointed out in Part 1, the IWR said absolutely nothing getting inspectors back in Iraq. So, not only did she vote for something that said nothing about her main reason for voting for the IWR, she voted against a provision that explicitly provided for that main reason.

Hillary's other "explanation"

This is such utter bullshit.

Here is how the Hillary web page concludes:

Defenders of the provision note that the Levin amendment said the matter could be referred back to Congress if the Security Council did not act. But that was a meaningless provision. Congress can always pass another law to supersede a previous one.

(emphasis added). Meaningless? It was meaningless to try to make Bush try to take steps to get a true mandate and coalition? It was meaningless to require Bush to come to Congress before the United States could invade Iraq? It was meaningless for Congress to preserve its exclusive Constitutional authority to declare war instead of just handing over that power to Bush? Well, for Hillary, of course all that was ans IS meaningless because she wants that same power, and that is yet another way she is just like George W. Bush.

What is truly meaningless is the last line: "Congress can always pass another law to supersede a previous one." There several reasons why this excuse was and always will be a huge steaming pile of shit. The IWR (as shown in Part 1) gave Bush full, unlimited, and exclusive discretion and authority (completely unchecked by Congress) to go to war with Iraq. He could have done so the day after the IWR was passed. Could Congress have then tried to rescind the authority it granted? As a practical matter, NO. By then it would have been too late. Moreover, the Republican-controlled Congress never would have done that, and even if it would have, there was no way that there would have been enough votes to override the inevitable Presidential veto.

Conclusion

Hillary's excuses for voting against the Levin Amendment are specious. She had a chance to take a stand and vote for a provision that 1) would have had as a primary goal getting weapons inspectors back in Iraq, 2) would not have ceded all possible discretion and authority to Bush, and 3) would not have allowed the UN to place any limits over US discretion or power. Instead, she took the easy way out--the way that was most politically expedient for her and her ambitions--and voted for a provision which said nothing about inspectors and granted Bush supreme authority to do whatever he wanted with the blessing of Congress.

In so doing, Hillary showed that she has no principles and no real moral courage. And her attempts to explain away her actions drive that point home.