One question about Hillary Clinton's IWR vote

[slick8790]

I've seen a bunch of threads from the usual suspects today saying Hillary voted for the IWR in order to allow inspectors to continue their work, and that is wasn't a vote for the war.

Well, I suppose that's fair enough. Although not really.

Can someone please answer for me, if she was in fact voting for just the inspectors to go back and, and did not want force used, why did she vote no on the Levin Amendment?



"The Levin Amendment

Urged to U.N. Security Council to adopt a resolution demanding that Iraq grant immediate and unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors. Authorized U.S. use of force only if Iraq failed to comply with the U.N. resolution. Sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Defeated 24 - 75."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#The_Levin_Amendment


New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay

http://iddybudjournal.blogspot.com/2008/02/levin-amendment-who-voted-for-it.html


I've posted this in 2 others threads and have yet to recieve an answer. I'll be waiting.

[sandnsea]

1. Clinton & Code Pink, March 2003

It's not the damn vote, she supported THE WAR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

[slick8790]

2. I know. I'd like some of the people saying she was voting for diplomacy to explain my OP.

It's insane the blinders some people put on.

[sandnsea]

10. Actually, I can

You don't want to vote for something that gives the UN more authority than the President. I don't have a problem with voting against the Levin Amendment on that basis. I also don't have a problem with the IWR vote itself. I appreciate that Obama got the Wolfowitz/Perle ideology right, way back in 2002, more than the vote. Hillary didn't stop at the vote, as that Code Pink clip shows. At every turn, her and Bill supported the invasion, even though they gave themselves wiggle room with their inspection weasel words. She actually used the words "stay the course" in 2003, and talked about winning in 2004. She is the one who was attacking the execution of the war, not so much the invasion. Kerry had a plan to start withdrawing troops in 2005, that got completely lost because of the competing message from the Clinton Dems.

[Milo_Bloom]

3. The inspector lie has been debunked.

Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors in September, 3 weeks before the IWR vote.

The idea that Clinton voted for the war to get inspectors in, is a desperate attempt at distraction.

[slick8790]

5. Agreed,

And thanks for the kick as well. I'm not gonna let this fall off the GDP first page, I'd like an answer here from some of those people.

[samrock]

14. hmm

You say "Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors in September, 3 weeks before the IWR vote."

Then why did none go in until AFTER the vote????

[Milo_Bloom]

16. Ask the UN.

The letter was delivered to the UN in September and the details were worked out with the UN.

Inspectors can't just appear in a country... teams need to be assembled, guidelines created. If anything the US muddied the waters by naming Iraq an imminent threat to the US in October, making it clear to anyone who read the IWR that we were attacking whether their were inspectors or not.

[Omega3]

4. "I was aginst the war before I actually had to vote in the US Senate" BHO

[slick8790]

6. Can you answer my question?

There's a big difference between funding troops and sending them there in the first place.

Can you explain why she voted no on the Levin amendment to the IWR?

[Submariner]

9. He voted to provide funding for troops in the Senate

because your idiot-in-chief had already drove the bus into the ditch.

[slick8790]

7. Kick! Come on Hillary supporters! Explain the actions of your girl! n/t

[stop the bleeding]

8. I am curious what the answer is to this question as well

:kick:

[slick8790]

11. And another kick. The silence is deafening. n/t

[Lucinda]

12. She felt the way it was worded subordinated the US position to the UN Security Council's opinion

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

"...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..."

"...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.

Asked on Friday to respond to the Levin quote, Phil Singer, a spokesperson for the Senator sent a quote from Sen. Russ Feingold warning that the Levin amendment would give the United Nations "Congress's proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat." Feingold, a prominent war critic, voted against the measure as well..."

[slick8790]

15. Finally, an actual answer.

Thank you for taking the time to find that.

That said, I think that's pretty bad rationale. Basically, she chose to trust George Bush's unilateral decisionmaking over the decisions of an international body designed just for these such situations. Not good leadership, IMHO.

[Lucinda]

17. I totally understand why they didn't want to set the precedent

However, when you have someone like junior at the helm, the idea of outside checks and balances doesn't strike me as a bad idea.

[slick8790]

19. I suppose I understand the precedent argument as well.

It just strikes me as a bad idea to give W free reign. Do you happen to know what her positions were on the Byrd or Durbin amendments? I couldn't find those.

[Lucinda]

22. I dont have anything on Levin...will see what I can find. I do have a Byrd link:

Byrd ammendment:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/04/politics/main2760370.shtml

Clinton noted on Thursday that in 2002 she had also voted for an amendment offered by Byrd that would have limited the war authorization to one year. The measure was defeated, and Edwards voted against it.

"I supported the Byrd amendment on Oct 10, 2002 which would have limited the original authorization to one year and I believe a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions of that authorization is overdue," she said.

[Maribelle]

13. Hillary has been consistent regarding her vote against the Levin amendment.,

In the January 28th debate she was specifically asked this question. Her responses have not wavered since 2002.


Briefly, Hillary said she voted against the Levin amendment because it would "subordinate" American national security decision-making to the United Nations Security Council.

[earthlover]

18. I don't buy the arguement that the Levin Amendment would have subordinated our decision making

There was nothing in the Levin Amendment which would have prevented the congress in the future from passing new legislation to do anything it wanted.....what Levin did do was buy some time in the rush to war, giving the UN more time to do the inspection thing. Which was, supposedly, what Hillary says she wanted....

[Ravy]

21. That is if the UN voted No. The problem is that if they voted Yes

then the authorization automatically follow their vote, giving the UN power it has never had before.

[earthlover]

20. I would like to see Hillary's first public statement that said she opposed Bush's War

because he did not give UN inspectors enough time....anyone? quote, link, date....

I is easy for hillary to say that now that she is running for president and the public has soured on the war....but what were here words then, when the war was popular? When did she make her feelings known?

[Evergreen Emerald]

23. She gave the speech on the SEnate floor saying she was opposed to war.

And, I am struck by your double standard: "but what were her words when the war was popular?" That is exactly the reason I don't support Obama. He is running on ONE SPEECH he gave in 2002 that he since backtracked, hid, ran away from, hailing Bush, and voting FOR THE WAR every chance he could when he had the power to do it.

The double standards on DU are striking.

[Ravy]

24. Link here

http://www.americablog.com/2007/02/hillary-responds-to-wsj-iraq-smear.html

I trust a statement to the Associated press a couple of weeks before the bombs dropped is enough. It wasn't her first statement on the matter though.

MARCH 2003: HILLARY URGES 'PEACEFUL SOLUTION,' PUSHES BUSH TO 'ENLIST MORE SUPPORT' FROM ALLIES: "'It is preferable that we do this in a peaceful manner through coercive inspection'...he senator said the Bush administration still had work to do at convincing the American public and the rest of the world that Hussein presented a real threat that might require military action. 'The administration should continue to try to enlist more support,' she added."

[earthlover]

25. I was asking where Hillary, said point blank she OPPOSED Bush's War....

not said it was preferable to have peace, something even Bush said....

When is the first time Hillary said bush's war was WRONG because it did not give time for inspections?

I would think that if indeed Hillary's vote was for inspections, she would have made her feelings known to the public at the time.....

When did she say it was WRONG?

[Ravy]

26. At the time she said it, there was not a war (yet).

She is saying that the inspections need to continue, that we should not invade. and that Bush had not made the case for military action.

How you anti-Hillary people construe that to say she was for an invasion instead of inspections from the get-go is beyond me, but it is totally dishonest.