Was Feingold right to vote against the Levin Amendment?

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5666

Hillary on the Levin Amendment
2/1/2008 2:42:09 PM

Today, Sen. Obama criticized Hillary for voting against the 2002 Levin amendment to the Iraq war resolution, claiming "the Levin Amendment simply suggested we should allow the inspectors to act."

Actually, that's not an accurate description of the provision. 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." This caused concern among many Senators, including staunchly anti-war Senators like Russ Feingold:

"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."

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, and in light of the situation we faced in 1999 when NATO acted to prevent a genocide in Kosovo without the approval of the Security Council, which was deadlocked. 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.

Clinton's finger is permanently chapped from keeping it in the political winds. The only backbone she has had in her Senatorial career has been provided by polling data suggesting the "safe choice."

VOTING OTHER in the general if she's the Dem candidate...me and MILLIONS of other voters who will not buy the hype and settle for a DINO/DLC pro-corporatist do-nothing.

J

typical

The OP is nothing more than a deflection from the central issue of her vote against the Levin Amendment. It wouldn't matter if Shit Sandwich Liberal voted against it. The point is SHE voted against it and SHE is running to be our Dem candidate in the general election.

J

J

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."

And here's Russ's official statement on it:

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/09/20070921.htm
September 21, 2007

??I supported the Levin-Reed amendment today because although it didn’t go as far as I would like, it would have taken a significant step towards ending the President’s disastrous Iraq policy. I am concerned that the amendment’s exceptions were overly broad and could have been exploited to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq for an extended period of time. But I was pleased that the amendment included a binding start and end date to the redeployment of our troops from Iraq, something I first proposed over a year ago. It is disappointing that the Senate once again failed to act on the will of the American people and end the President’s disastrous Iraq policy.”

Feingold has been working very hard to end this war. I trust his judgement on this.

http://www.feingold.senate.gov/issues_timeline.html

133 seperate actions listed there.

I wish he were running :(

Video of his remarks In Support of the Levin-Reed Amendment to Redeploy U.S. Troops from Iraq by April 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/07/20070712.htm

Anxiously awaiting more listening sessions. I missed the 2 last weekend :(

I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Feingold-Democratic-Sanford-D-Horwitt/dp/141653492X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201538159&sr=8-1



:thumbsup:

:toast:

Lots of Senators put their political careers ahead of what was best for the country. Especially considering Bush "promised" that he would be a good boy and attempt diplomacy.

That doesn't make their lack of foresight acceptable.

he`s the only senator that has consistently done the right thing. i`m still disappointed that he did`t run.

Pipe-dream, maybe - but I would campaign every waking moment for any ticket bearing his name.

When he was 7 he stated that he will be the 1st Jewish president. I dream of the day.

This is the final clause of Section 3:



This says that Congress maintained the right to approve the use of force in Iraq, should the United Nations disagree with the request to do so.

No time to read deeply when you're too busy sucking up to corporations to fund your power hungry aspirations.