CHAFEE Raises a Good Point -Why did Dem Sen. who voted FOR IWR, Vote NO for LEVIN and ViseVersa?

[FrenchieCat]

Chafee's Op-ed in today's NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

in it, he states apart from other things.....

The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.

It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: “This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.”

Americans are gravely concerned about Iraq, and yearn for leadership to stabilize the situation there and gradually end United States involvement. Calling on presidential hopefuls to justify or recant their vote authorizing the president to take us to war almost misses the point.

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.

The Levin Amendment would have required a vote from the UN, and then if Vote lost in UN then the administration would have had to come back to Congress for a 2nd vote before using force.

So when one looks at who voted AYE for the Levin amendment, the overwhelming majority of those Senators also voted NAY on the IWR that passed.

The same hold true in reverse; those who voted NAY on the Levin amendment voted AYE on the IWR.

So the question that Chafee is reminding us to ask; why did those who are now saying they made a mistake now vote NO on the Levin amendment? What is their rationale for their NO vote on the Levin Amendment? :shrug:
----------------------
NOTE: Senators who voted Nay on Levin, Yeah on IRW names' are in italics below. The ones running for President are bolded.

Akaka (D-HI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Baucus, Max (D-MT) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Bayh, Evan (D-IN) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Biden, Joe (D-DE) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Bingaman (D-NM) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Boxer (D-CA) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Breaux, John (D-LA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Byrd (D-WV) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Carper, Tom (D-DE) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Chafee (R-RI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Cleland, Max (D-GA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Conrad (D-ND) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Corzine (D-NJ) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Dayton (D-MN) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Durbin (D-IL) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Edwards, John (D-NC) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

*Feinstein (D-CA) Voted AYE on Levin, AYE on IRW

Harkin (D-IA) Voted AYE on Levin, AYE on IRW

Hollings, Fritz (D-SC) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Inouye (D-HI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Jeffords (I-VT) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Kennedy (D-MA) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Kerry, John (D-MA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

*Kohl (D-WI) Voted AYE on Levin, AYE on IRW

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Leahy (D-VT) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Levin (D-MI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Mikulski (D-MD) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Miller, Zell (D-GA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Nelson, Ben (D-NE) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Reed (D-RI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Reid, Harry (D-NV) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

*Rockefeller (D-WV) Voted AYE on Levin, AYE on IRW

Sarbanes (D-MD) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Schumer, Chuck (D-NY) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Stabenow (D-MI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Wellstone (D-MN) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

Wyden (D-OR) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on IRW

*Feinstein, Kohl and Rockefeller all voted AYE on both
Feingold is not on the list. He voted NAY on both

If all DEM Senators including the one 1 Republican (Chafee) and Jeffords who did would have voted AYE on the Levin amendment, it would have passed......51 to 49--I guess that Liberman and Zell Miller would have not done this....but the message sent to Bush would have been very different, IMO.
But that's besides the point as each senator is responsible for his/her vote.

I understand the rational of those who voted YEA on Levin and NO on IWR.....just don't understand the rational on the ones who did the opposite.

So again, why did those senators who admit making a mistake now vote NO on the Levin Amendment? Because they could have voted Yes on Both....but they chose not to.

Your take?

[BayCityProgressive]

1. All of those dems supported the war

simple. They never thought it would be the mess it has become. Now that their liberal base is demanding answers they are scrambling like dirty little rats to find excuses.

[David Zephyr]

2. Big thanks, FrenchieCat, for your thread. I hope it gets the play here it deserves.

K&R.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Well, I am just asking Chafee's question.....

Which the more I think of it, the less I like the answer.

[JNelson6563]

35. It may not since it's a dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3140028&mesg_id=3140028

[FrenchieCat]

43. Thanks for pointing that out........

But two threads on this so little discussed subject matter is probably welcomed by some!

:hi:

[GeorgeGist]

4. Better question, perhaps...

Why are none of the current sitting Senators who voted Aye on Levin and No on IWR, running for President?

[ProSense]

5. Why did Feingold vote against it?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES PURSUANT TO A NEW UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.--Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance.

Seems Chaffee also voted against Kerry-Feingold. He lost his seat because of his position on Iraq. He should have taken a more forceful stance when he was in the Senate.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Feingold didn't want to give UN any power over our going to war..and didn't believe any intervention

was required, not even from the United Nations. So he voted no on both.
I respect that, and it makes sense. It's a most principled position.

The Levin amendment would not have gotten YEAH votes from all of those other senators (who voted NAY on the IWR) if it was instinguishable from the IWR. They was a difference between them which I mentioned.

I'm not painting Chafee as a hero of sort. I just think that his op-ed and the issue he points to is a valid question to ask of those running.

Do you?

[ProSense]

11. No, for the very reason I stated.

There were a lot of resolutions and people had different reasons for voting the way they did. That is why there are three aye votes for both. It wasn't because they were for and against war. Saying that this was a vote for war when the IWR clearly stated as one of it's criteria that the UN resolution must be adhered to, is false.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Why did those three vote AYE for both ?

And....I also don't believe that the Levin amemdment was a vote against war....as much as a vote to slow the march of war down.....to allow more debate, allow the United Nations to make its case and have a chance for them to vote.

I believe that the Levin amemdment was a vote to take the case to the United Nations, and if there wasn't a vote by the UN or the UN vote resulted in a NO vote, then the Admin would have to come back to congress.

[ProSense]

13. I did address that in my response. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

14. Please see my edited post...entered prior to you reply....

I agree with some of what you say, and disagree with other points.

I do agree with you that LEVIN was not a vote against war......just a slower and more restrictive check than the IWR blank check.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Power? No one ever said the UN granted POWER

What the UN grants is GLOBAL CONSENSUS.

This is what separates unilateral actions from narrow-minded national provincialisms.

That Feingold voted for neither is no heroism, in my opinion.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I think that Feingold just doesn't believe in intervention without

doing so for cause of self defense.

He's not a true pacifist.....but close.

That's why he believes in Israel's right to defend herself.

[Canuckistanian]

31. Like last year's invasion of Lebanon?

"Self-defense" is a very slippery concept these days, used to justify any means.

Is it so wrong to have a second opinion that matters to the rest of the world?

[FrenchieCat]

32. I agree that "self defense" is Muddled......

and yes, I believe that a 2nd opinion is actually preferred...in particular in reference to war.

[Hav]

7. .

Hm if I got it right, then he does indeed make a very good point. Especially when it's about those among the Dems who years later tried to justify their vote with reasons that their covered by this other vote, at least to a degree. Quite disappointing.

[Adelante]

8. Similar column last week in the Detroit News

Now teaching at Brown University, Chafee doesn't have a whole lot of sympathy for the Democratic presidential hopefuls now trying to distance themselves from that fateful resolution in 2002. To him, voting "nay" was a slam-dunk, and "what we know now" was pretty obvious back then. That New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won't disown her "yes" vote, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has renounced his, Chafee told me the other day, is immaterial. Their vote was the problem.

"What frustrates me -- even watching (Massachusetts Sen. John) Kerry in the '04 campaign as he tried to explain the vote -- is that there were two votes that day," Chafee said. One was the Levin amendment, which would have slowed the march to war by sanctioning an attack only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Delaware's Joe Biden and Connecticut's Chris Dodd refused to support the measure, introduced by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin. These Democrats all harbored presidential ambitions and probably didn't want to be linked with a strategy that Bush allies portrayed as a weak-kneed response to the menace of Saddam.

Then a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chafee recalls taking great pains to note that the Levin amendment came with an important caveat that protected America's right to self-defense. "It said that if the Security Council drags its feet and we're in imminent danger," he said, "or some kind of new information comes out and we had to act quickly, we could meet in 24 hours and be ready to give the president authorization."

Presidency-minded Democrats could have voted for the Levin amendment, and when it failed to pass, gone on to fully authorize the president. Four other Democrats did just that.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/OPINION03/702220309

[karynnj]

46. This then looks like a co-ordinated action

I think that Chaffee is trying to help the Republicans by undermining the explanation that Hillary is giving. It appears from other posts, that Edwards voted against all the amendments. It does appear that other amendments - such as the Durbin one were clearer in narrowing the approval than this one. (this really does show that Edwards was very willing to go to war.)

Here, I assume that Bush would have interpreted the UN resolution that he got as meeting that condition. What is interesting is that between the bill and the Levin alternative, there are very few Senators who did not vote under some conditions to go to war. (Feingold was no on both). Going into these votes, makes me less angry with the IWR vote, because unlike Chaffee, I don't think this would have been more able to stop Bush. It is interesting that the real choice was likely between these 2 alternatives. (It's clear how the Levin one would be used in a Presidential election - it would be said we gave the decision to the UN. This is not the case, but I'm sure that was how it would appear.)

[Adelante]

50. The important thing about Levin

was that Bush would have had to return to Congress to seek authorization after a UN resolution. Was this true of Durbin as well, karynnj? I'm getting a little confused by all of the amendments.

[karynnj]

52. I'm as confused as you

My reading was that with UN authorization he would NOT have to come back. That would lead to questions of what is Un authorization. The amendment had some specifics - but it seemed that Bush simply ignored any promises or conditions.

What surprises me is how many voted either for the IWR or the Levin bill. All of them were willing to go to war if necessary. All of them had some concept that the President could be constrained, but in reality he likely couldn't. What is clear is that they forced through a really bad bill.

What I suspect happened is that some of those who voted for the IWR may have promised to do so to limit the scope and reasons. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED to have done so - so there is a good chance I am wrong. But reading some floor statements some comment on changes made - to limit it to just Iraq, and to take out some of the reasons. (Durbin's amendment that failed would have explicitlylimited to just WMD.)

It makes sense that some would try to make the bill that was clearly going to pass better - but in this case, they got burned. They didn't make the war more likely, but they have been labeled pro-war. (At least Harkin and Kerry were anything but pro-war.)
Consider the situation if they didn't amend the IWR to limit just to Iraq.

[Adelante]

53. If Bush decided to go unilaterally, after the UN

He was obligated under Levin to return to Congress for authorization.

[karynnj]

65. The problem would have been that it was more ambiguous

He would have claimed as he did - that the UN resolution that was unaninimously passed did give him this right. He claimed in March 2003, that some countries in the UN were not living up to their resolution. As it was, he DID ignore all his public promises on the IWR itself and did not comply to its provisions. He likely would have ignored any resolution.

The Durbin amendment is explained well in Mass's post:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3140690&mesg_id=3140781



I think the real problem was that the Democratic leadership allowed itself to get pushed to resolve this before the election. There were NO good choices. It does seem to me that there is still a lot that is unknown about what happened behind the scenes.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Durbin makes clear the difference between Lieberman's IWR and his own, the Levin here.....

Levin speaking on behalf of the amendment he put forth....and the difference between it and the blank check resolution.

"The resolution the White House seeks is not limited to the use of force if the United Nations authorizes it. On the contrary, it specifically authorizes now the use of force on a unilateral, go-it- alone basis, that is, without Security Council authorization. The President's rhetoric does not match the resolution before us.

The White House approach also authorizes the use of force beyond dealing with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, which is also a difference from my resolution.

The resolution which I offer on behalf of those cosponsors and myself is consistent with how I think most Americans want us to proceed. It emphasizes the importance of dealing with Iraq on a multilateral basis, and it withholds judgment at this time on the question of whether the United States should go it alone, that is, whether we should act unilaterally against Iraq if the United Nations fails to act. "
http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_08Levin.html

[FrenchieCat]

62. I meant Levin made it clear....not Durbin! n/t

[karynnj]

64. Delete - I see your other response.

[Mass]

9. So, why did Chafee vote against the Durbin amendment that would have limited

Bush possibilities to an eminent attack, and got more votes than the Levin amendment, including Feingold and voted AFTER the Levin amendment.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Or for the second Byrd resolution, that would have forced Bush to come back to the Senate and was also on the 10th:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234


Any of these resolutions would have blocked Bush, but it seems that Chafee is careful to choose the only one he voted for.


Why Chafee was right to have voted against the IWR, his recent posturing looks like one coming from somebody bitter because he was beaten in 06.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I believe that you may have a good question .......

But you should provide more than a link on that amendment. I remember Bin-Lugar, but don't remember a Durbin amemdment. When was it voted on? A little bit of fleshing out on your part so that we don't have to do the research to figure out exactly what you are saying would be helpful.

Whether Chafee is "bitter", I don't know? :shrug:

What I do know is that Durbin voted Yeah on the IWR, and Chafee voted NO.

How did others vote....
Give a list, like I did. It was work, but worth it in order to provide the information in as clear way as possible.

[Mass]

15. Durbin voted NO on the IWR.

Akaka (D-HI) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Baucus, Max (D-MT) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Bayh, Evan (D-IN) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Biden, Joe (D-DE) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Bingaman (D-NM) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Boxer (D-CA) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Breaux, John (D-LA) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Byrd (D-WV) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Carnahan, Jean (D-MO) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Carper, Tom (D-DE) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Chafee (R-RI) voted AYE on Levin, NAY on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Cleland, Max (D-GA) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Conrad (D-ND) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Corzine (D-NJ) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Dayton (D-MN) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Dorgan, Byron (D-ND) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Durbin (D-IL) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Edwards, John (D-NC) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

*Feinstein (D-CA) Voted AYE on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Harkin (D-IA) Voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Hollings, Fritz (D-SC) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Inouye (D-HI) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Jeffords (I-VT) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Kennedy (D-MA) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Kerry, John (D-MA) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

*Kohl (D-WI) Voted AYE on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Leahy (D-VT) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Levin (D-MI) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Mikulski (D-MD) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Miller, Zell (D-GA) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Nelson, Ben (D-NE) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Reed (D-RI) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Reid, Harry (D-NV) Voted NAY on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

*Rockefeller (D-WV) Voted AYE on Levin, NAY on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Sarbanes (D-MD) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Schumer, Chuck (D-NY) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on IRW

Stabenow (D-MI) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ) Voted NAY on Levin, AYE on Durbin, AYE on IRW

Wellstone (D-MN) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

Wyden (D-OR) voted AYE on Levin, AYE on Durbin, NAY on IRW

[FrenchieCat]

16. So can you give us a short sypnopsis on the Durbin amendment?

Durbin voted yeah on Levin, Yeah on his own and NAY on IWR...you are correct, and I was incorrect (got confused...cause I really knew that Durbin voted against IWR)

So this still confirms that even Durbin preferred Levin to IWR as well it seems.

Dodd, of those running is the only one that voted NAY for Levin, AYE for Durbin and AYE For IRW. (I note that Kerry did too).

The rest are: No L/No D/Yes IWR.

So what was Durbin's aim, in a nutshell?

[Mass]

17. Here is the synopsis of the Durbin amendment.

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.

There is actually also a Byrd amendment which would have limited the authorization to a limited period. This one was voted by every candidate except Edwards.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232
To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

My point was that many amendments were voted that day that would have limited Bush's ability to go to war, and I am not sure why Chafee is only quoting this one, rather than some others.

[Adelante]

18. Did the others require a second vote by Congress?

After the UN.

[Mass]

20. None of these votes (including Levin) required a second vote by Congress.

To the best of my knowledge, the only one who did was the second Byrd amendment, that most senators, including Chafee, voted against.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234

[FrenchieCat]

25. Those voting YEAH on 2nd Byrd amendment....

Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea

To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq.

That just seem to say that other than Iraq, nothing else. Doesn't seem like it would have slowed down the march of war, unless coupled with some other amendments. :shrug: (on a quick read).

[Adelante]

28. According to EPIC

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq. It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution – S.J.Res.46.

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

[Adelante]

49. According to Carl Levin

Mr. Levin: 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.

http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021009/cr09oc02-79_08Levin.html

[Clarkie1]

21. The way I read this, the Levin ammendment would not have required Congressional authorizaion

(a) AUTHORIZATION.--Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) that is adopted after the enactment of this joint resolution, and subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers, and related facilities, if Iraq fails to comply with the terms of the Security Council resolution.

(b) REQUIREMENTS.--Before the authority granted in subsection (a) is exercised, the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the United States has used appropriate diplomatic and other peaceful means to obtain compliance by Iraq with a resolution of the United Nations Security Council described in section 2(2) and that those efforts have not been and are not likely to be successful in obtaining such compliance.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107wAGoGX:e0:


Sounds like it just said the President has to make some kind of report..."his determination."

[Clarkie1]

34. Upon closer reading, this is not the case.

The Levin ammendment required the President to seek authorization from the U.N. through a resolution. In the presence of such a resolution, the President would only be required to report to the Congress on his intent and the justification for war in order to wage war. In the absence of such a U.N. authorization, The President would be required to seek authorization from the Congress if he wished to wage war.

In my opinion, any Senator who voted against this ammendment, did not vote for an alternative or "stronger" ammendment, and voted for the IWR was derelict in their duty to check the power of the executive branch.

[karynnj]

42. The UN did pass a resolution unanimously

There was suppose to be a second UN vote, but it never occured because we would have lost. So, instead, Bush met with the leaders of Spain and UK.

Bush likely would have either had a signing statement or would have spun this as the UN resolution.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Probably because the Durbin admendment was done the day before.....

and I might ask Chafee about it.....I will read the language of this amemdment.

The Byrd amendment appears to be making Authorization to use force as a foregone conclusion.....with a termination date. That would note have slowed down the march to war, I don't think.

Byrd voted Yeah on Levin, No on IWR. In fact, on quick review looks like all who voted Yeah on Byrd also voted Yeah on Levin, and voted no on IWR. But it does look like Clinton, Biden and Dodd also voted Yeah on Byrd. Edwards surprisingly voted NAY on every alternate Amendment and voted YEA on the Blank check. (I note that Kerry voted with Clinton, Biden and Dodd as a YEAH on Byrd).

and so on quick review, it appears that all who offered alternative amemdments voted NAY on the Blank check.

That Clinton, Biden and Dodd who voted YEAH on IWR voted YEAH on Byrd, but NAY on Levin.

Also noted that Edwards voted NAY on Durbin, Byrd, and Levin while voting YEAH on IWR.

[Mass]

24. As I read Levin, it would not have slowed the road to war.

I would just have asked Bush for a regular reporting, but, once the UN would have adopted the 1441, I do not see what would have been different.

Anyway, it is interesting to see how people voted on all these resolutions, even if there is no justification for voting for the IWR, except admitting it was an error to trust Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

26. How do you read the Levin amendment?

Cause how I read it, it would have....

To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002''.

(B) authorize 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).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107BQqA83:e0:

-------------
This means to me.....

go and make your case to the United Nations. We give authorization to The United Nations to use military force.

If the United Nations adopts a NEW resolution to use force, then we shall.

If the United Nations does not adopt a NEW resolution or fails to enforce the Resolution it does adopt, then come back to Congress and will talk about this some more.

[Clarkie1]

33. I think you are right...nt.

[TayTay]

41. Durbin Amendment, Oct 10th, 2002

From the floor speech Sen. Durbin made in defense of his Amendment:

EDIT TO ADD: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Let me go to the particular reason to raise this amendment to this resolution. The House has passed the resolution we are considering. It tells you we are drawing that much closer to the possibility of war. It is a historic decision, one which now is in this Chamber. If this Chamber agrees to the same resolution and presents it on the President's desk, my guess is it will be signed very quickly. It is more than just war against Iraq. Just a few weeks ago, the administration released what they called ``The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.'' It is a document which outlines what they consider to be the new parameters of foreign policy in our Nation. It is well worth the read.

You will find in this document, on page 15, a significant and historic departure from the foreign policy of the United States. The argument is made in this publication by the administration, by President Bush's White House, that the world has changed so significantly since September 11, 2001, that the principles and values and norms of conduct of our foreign policy must be changed dramatically in this respect. We have always said to the world: The United States is not an aggressor nation. We are not seeking to invade your country for territory or treasure. But if you threaten us, you can expect that we will return with all the force and power we have.

We are not trying to conquer you, but if you threaten our territory, our people, our allies, our Armed Forces, you can expect the worst. That is the way it should be.

We have said historically we are a defensive nation. Even at the height of the cold war, we did not endorse a first strike against the Soviet Union. No, we are a defensive nation. This new foreign policy reflected in the resolution before us is a dramatic departure from that.

The argument is made that we have no choice. Because we are now fighting terrorism, we can no longer wait for an imminent threat against the United States. We have to be able to move preemptively for what might be, as is said in this resolution, a continuing threat.

What does it mean? If you list the nations of the world that pose any threat to the United States, unfortunately the list is fairly long. It would not just be Iraq. The President's ``axis of evil'' includes North Korea and Iran. One would certainly put Syria, Libya, and maybe many other countries on that list.

What the President's foreign policy is calling for is the right of the United States to attack these countries without provocation, without imminent threat. That, I say to my friends in the Senate, is a dramatic departure in foreign policy. We are not just talking about how to deal with Saddam Hussein, how to deal with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what to do through the United Nations. The supporters of this resolution are calling for a dramatic departure in American foreign policy.

From my point of view, it is a departure which is unwarranted and unwise. This is why I believe it: For over 50 years, with nuclear Armageddon facing us, with nuclear missiles poised in the Soviet Union and in the United States, our position was one of deterrence. We said, as I mentioned before, we would not strike first. We held that position, with some rare exceptions. That was our position as a nation, and it prevailed. It prevailed to overcome the Soviet Union and, frankly, to bring the Russians closer to our position in the world and to bring the world closer to peace.

Look what has happened in the last 10 years in our relationship with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf war, we have made it clear to Saddam Hussein and his leaders that if they make one bad move with a weapon of mass destruction, either through a terrorist organization or directly against the United States, its neighbors, or any of our allies, frankly, they will pay a heavy price. There has never been a doubt about that. There is no doubt about that today.

The establishment and maintenance of the no-fly zone is our way of keeping an eye on Saddam Hussein from start to finish. There is not a tank or truck that moves in Iraq today we do not monitor. There is not a hole that is dug and filled up we do not monitor. We made that clear under existing foreign policy, but this resolution says it is time for us to change that policy. It is time for us to argue we can preemptively strike Iraq or any other country before they pose a threat to the United States. That is a dramatic change.

My amendment goes to this issue and says the President has the authority to use force. Let me read it specifically because I do not want to misstate it for my colleagues:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

That is what my amendment says. It spells that out in terms of foreign policy that we have created, in many respects, and honored throughout our history. To state it as stated in this resolution is to endorse this new rewrite of American foreign policy and to say in the age of terrorism that preemption is the answer.

This was an important part of the debate. It defined the role of the President, under the Constitution to defend the nation against an 'immiment threat.' Sen. Durbin, and those who voted for his amendment were saying that they wanted to authorize this war only up to that point. (Many have argued that this power is inherent in the Constitutional definition of the powers of the Commander in Chief anyway.) This would have been a rebuke to the President's policy of declaring 'pre-emptive war' which, as Sen. Durbin pointed out, was an unprecedented move in the foreign policy history of the US.

In brief, if there is an imminent threat like the imminent use of WMD, fine we can use armed force to deal with it. If not, then no. (No 'continuing threat scenario, which is endless war.) The burden of proof would be on proving, on an on-going basis, that there is an immiment threat.

[Adelante]

51. Do you have a link to that text, TayTay?

Thank you.

[TayTay]

59. Not directly, due to the weirdness that is THOMAS

However, I can show you how to access this in the Congressional Record.

Go here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

Select the Congress that you wish to search. This debate occured in the 107th Congress, second session.

That brings you here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_107_2.htm

Scroll down until you see the bills that came up for a vote on Oct 10th. Then look in the description field on the right to see the sponsor. In this case, it was Sen. Durbin from Illinois.

I do have a link for this page, but sometimes you have to go through the whole search. Anyway, if it works, this is the page for that vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Click on the link marked S.Amdt 4865. That brings you to a summary of everything that happened to this amendment on the Senate floor. (Again, I have a link, but it might not work.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SP4865:

On this summary page, click on the link marked (consideration: CR S10265-10272; text: ) This link is in the STATUS section.

This will take you to the Congressional Record discussion that mentions this bill. Then you can use search terms (like just DURBIN) to find the text you want. (You can just search for this on the first screen that comes up, or his Printer Friendly Display at the top and search the whole text of the debate which went on for pages of the record.)

Sorry this is so convoluted. That's the THOMAS system for ya.

EDIT: BTW, the whole of that discussion leading up to the vote was fascinating. I also have a link to the withdrawn Biden-Amendment that would have substantially altered the Authorization if you want it. It is not in the Congressional Record as it never made it out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (See Lieberman, betrayal of Dems by, sigh!)

[AtomicKitten]

19. Wellstone: A man of conscience.

However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war.

[FrenchieCat]

23. Hero is the word!

:headbang:

[FrenchieCat]

29. Levin Amendment on Iraq

Tr u t h o u t 10/5/02
Senator Carl Levin
Delivered on the Senate Floor
In Support of Levin Amendement on Iraq
Friday, 4 October, 2002
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

-------------

Blue man in a Red district, 2/15/07

Wellstone's Statement of October 3, 2002 reprinted
http://buildourparty.blogspot.com/2007/02/congress-debates-iraq.html

[ms liberty]

36. K&R - important points...n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Because Bush was popular at the time, because an election was approaching

and because Lieberman's IWR was seen as taking a tough stand against Iraq that didn't get all hung up over wanting U.N. approval before the United States would act to protect itself.

I thought it was politics at the time and I still think so today. I don't think any but a few of the Democrats who voted for Lieberman's IWR would have taken us to war with Iraq using it but, as expected, Bush did.

And this is not only water under the bridge for me with Iran staring us right in the face now. Too many politicians can't be trusted to make the right decisions unless they are hearing loud and strong from the public at the time. Please add your voice at http://stopiranwar.com/

[ShortnFiery]

47. But overall, because they valued their CAREERS more than taking the MORAL and JUST stand.

I knew that the M$M were hyping the Iraqi invasion for their blessed Unitary Executive who serves their Corporate Masters.

Why is it that a lowly former Army military officer is more insightful than all the "Democratic Stars" in our congress that voted for the IWR? The answer is, I'm not. However, I didn't have a political career to nurture above the welfare of The Constitution or my Constitutes. :thumbsdown:

[Donna Zen]

38. Think-tankitis

Something that Steve Clemens wrote at the "Washington Note" shed some light on the answer to your question.

And the FPE, you see, is fairly conservative. There's one house, the New America Foundation, that has admirably made itself the center of the foreign-policy opposition in Washington. But outside of New America, the FPE is dominated by conservatives, neo and otherwise in redoubts like the American Enterprise Institute, and centrist Democrats. This last category is typified by Kenneth Pollack, of the nominally liberal Brookings Institution, whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, made a case for the Iraq war which many liberals endorsed. In fact, it's fair to say that most of the FPE was pro-war, and even today, many of its prominent members will admit only to botched execution on the administration's part, not to any broader problems with the whole idea from the start.

This is a bunch whose views are well to the right of the Democratic primary electorate. And it is a bunch in whose good graces Hillary Clinton, a cautious and establishment politician at her core, is fervent to stay. And as was once said of love in the movies, so it must be said today that staying in the FPE's good graces means never having to say you're sorry.

And this is where a potential Clinton presidency becomes a concern. If she is elected, she will likely draw most of her foreign-policy brain trust from this world -- not from the neoconservative wing, but from the pro-war neoliberal wing; in other words, from a group of people who got Iraq completely wrong.

The original article cited is by Tomasky writing at The Guardian.

When I read this, I had one of those "pieces falling into place" moments. The senators voting "yes" are reliant on these Think Tanks, and as the article pointed out, these Think Tanks are littered with neocons or neoliberals. The "yes" voters are not foreign policy experts and/or they are courting the favor of the very people who got it wrong. Very wrong. However, since foreign policy and national security are not the strength of these elected officials, and since the power of the Think Tanks is uber-war, we should expect any future crisis to be dealt with just like the Iraq War vote. Nothing has changed no matter the spin.

[Supersedeas]

39. So proud of the Dems who voted Aye on Levin and Nay on IRW

And Chafee has to be given some credit here -- he is on the right side of history.

[formercia]

40. How does the DLC play here?

which Dems who voted Nay on Levin and Aye on the IWR are members of the DLC?

[FrenchieCat]

44. I provided a list.......

An analysis would be interesting.

Are you up for the job?

[formercia]

55. Here's a list of the DLC membership

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

[FrenchieCat]

57. Actually there are 3 on that listing that voted Yeah to Levin....

2 of which (Feinstein & Kohl) who also voted Yeah on the Lieberman IWR
and 1 (Graham) who voted against.

The rest listed on that list you provided and who were in the Senate at the time and would have voted on the IWR did as you suggested....voted Nay on Levin and Yeah on Lieberman's IRW.

[formercia]

58. The leadership of the DLC is connected to PNAC

which might explain the voting trend. The question that I have is whether the DLC Leadership steered their members to vote for the IWR and against Levin.

[FrenchieCat]

60. I know that Levin and Ted Kennedy and Wes Clark worked actively for the Levin Amendment....

Ted Kennedy in this exchange on Larry King talks about what was happening in the background during those days...

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
<>
They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

The sad aspect was that this administration, this president insisted that we have the vote prior to the election, prior to the election. What does that say to you that they wanted to have it so it was going to be used in the election, unlike his father that had the vote on the Gulf War after the election.

I thought that was an enormously interesting and powerful historical factor and I think that's why those that rushed us to war with inadequate intelligence, carefully selected and manipulated have real accountability in why they shouldn't be held accountable.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and even when the NYT came out with article that headlined that Wes Clark had said he would have voted "for" war on the first day of his candidacy back in 2003, this is the 4th paragraph in the article....

"General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. "
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecting_nagourneys_nyt_arti.html

Sen. Conrad's statement when he voted Nay on Lieberman's Resolution (he voted Yea for the Levin Amendment and Yea for Durbin's)....

AN OPEN-ENDED RESOLUTION
Let me be clear. I do not oppose the use of force against this lawless and dangerous tyrant. But I cannot support the resolution before us as it stands. It is too broad and open-ended, and I do not believe that it is in the national security interest of the United States.

In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more.
<>
General Wesley Clark, the Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, put it succinctly, and I quote: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies....we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. General Clark warned us: "We're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda."
<>
I support the use of force when it is in our national security interest. I voted for the Levin amendment to authorize the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein and affirm our right to self defense. I voted for the Durbin amendment to authorize the use of force to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
<>
I know this vote will place me with a small minority of my colleagues, but I must vote my conscience. I say to the President and to my colleagues that while I do not support this resolution, I know it will pass.
http://conrad.senate.gov/releases/02/10/2002A11646.html

also back in 2002....

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

[formercia]

63. Can't have those pesky specifics

that might have limited Junior's ability to wage Global War. You know damn well the Administration had their fingers in the pie, making sure it was left vague.

WE need to know exactly who the players were, down to the very assistants that did the typing to find out who said what to whom.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

45. because Biden-Lugar was better?

and Kerry also voted nay/aye. You missed that.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Provide us with the "Nutshell" of the Biden-Lugar amendment, if you please.....

I believe that it deserves more than a mere passing mention.

I'm glad that this discussion is occurring...otherwise, we'd forget what was actually happening and what was being offered as alternatives at the time.

Apologies from our democratic candidates are great, but it appears that there is much more than meets the eye as to what our options truly were at that time. It does seem that it wasn't simply a question of voting for War vs. No War. It appears that there were alternatives offered that could have allowed one, even if unsure about the intelligence or Bush's trustworthiness to have supported their moral stance and still voted for a resolution to take some action if they were so compelled. In fact, the breath of the measures offered leads me to think that the Lieberman IWR was the most extreme, the most blank....and that there was a lot of grey in the various actions that congress could have supported. This reality of that time needs to be revisited with more context than we have been led to believe.

It is important as we judge the future, in reference to our politicians...because how can we know who is going to take us where, if we don't truly truly remember where they were really coming from to begin with? :shrug:

[sandnsea]

54. It's too tied to UN approval

How quickly people forget the beating Kerry took for asking the UN for "permission". Another case where too many people just don't recognize where in the hell they live.

[FrenchieCat]

56. But there was nothing wrong with seeking UN approval of their own resolution.....

no matter what "they", the opposition was saying.

I don't believe that voting to allow the U.N. to work on this prior to congress taking final action was the wrong thing to do....regardless of the political climate of that day.

See, that's the problem in a nutshell....the lack of courage some politicians demonstrated by laying down because of what the wingnuts and the media were saying.

Isn't that part of the problem?

Bush said war, the media repeated it....and so we went and that's justified by somehow not being able to include the U.N. in our decision making to go to war against a country who wasn't an imminent threat?

[Honeycombe8]

66. Good point.

I wasn't aware of the Levin amendment, or I've forgotten it. Excellent point.