Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lincoln Chafee: Senators should be called to account for their vote on the 2002 Levin Iraq amendment

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 09:48 AM
Original message
Lincoln Chafee: Senators should be called to account for their vote on the 2002 Levin Iraq amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE

Published: March 1, 2007

<snip>

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

...

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

...

The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.

Lincoln D. Chafee, a Republican senator from Rhode Island from 1999 to 2006, is a visiting fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blackhatjack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. It would have tracked the coalition formed to support Gulf War I .....
which George W. Bush found burdensome.

I believe George W. wanted all the glory for this military adventure, and did not want to share it with anybody else. OF course he got exactly what he wanted, all the glory and all the blame for this incredible disaster.

You know his dad must have counselled him against this, and George W. ignored him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Chafee is correct. All of those who voted against the Levin resolution
need to explain why they chose Bush's resolution over Levin's...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. i vaguely recall an amendment like this. How sad---What could have been!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. This factual Fuckup by the Bush Guys will not escape History...
The Victory Bush wanted is now over the horizon and outta sight....he figured if Victory was acheived....all would be OK...

Chafee has reminded us what true patriots do....tell the TRUTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oreo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Can anyone find record of the vote?
Not having much luck here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. Feingold voted NO on this. May be this was not as great as Chafee makes it.
Edited on Thu Mar-01-07 10:19 AM by Mass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I think Feingold rejected any ammendment that had a premise of attacking Iraq...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. No - Feingold actually voted for the Durbin amendment
Edited on Thu Mar-01-07 10:33 AM by Mass
while Chafee voted NO. Chafee is being disingenuous here.


Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4865 )
Vote Number: 236 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 04:48 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4865 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45
Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 30
YEAs ---30
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. thanks for the additional info - I meant Feingold wanted it clearly stated "imminent threat"
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
10. Damn straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
11. I've read enough until I have more time to say Chafee may be
at the front of an important future of another kind. We suspected that there was more to him than was allowed by the pressure placed on him, Jeffords, and possibly Snowe.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC