Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.
Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.
Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.
Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.
The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve.
Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.
There was a time when I looked favorably upon Hillary’s candidacy, believing that for all her other faults she at least would be tough in the war on terror and would support a vigorous foreign policy. Obviously that view seems naive now.
I think that Democrats are making a monumental mistake in their course of action concerning the Iraq war from a political perspective (obviously I think it is a mistake in other ways as well.) There is I think a fair chance that anti-war sentiments will help them into the Whitehouse in 2008, but long term it is a loosing position.
The world is a dangerous place, and it will almost certainly become more dangerous before it gets better. Failed states and non-state terrorist actors are going to be a continuing threat that will at times at least require a military response. Unless Democrats come up with a coherent policy to deal with those threat, and also (and perhaps more importantly) demonstrate that their principles in this area are more important to them then short term political gain, I think they will find that the American people won’t trust them.
Stunts like this one don’t help them in that at all.
I’ve long been of the view that Hillary Clinton is deeply unserious about matters of war and peace and about … well, everything. Her statement in last week’s debate justifying her current position on Iraq by stating that the American people support it epitomizes the problem.
But I don’t know that I necessarily buy your characterization of the Democratic position on terror issues. Just because many of us think that the Iraq War was a tragic, mistaken policy and hurt the U.S. in its global opposition to the likes of Al Qaeda doesn’t mean that we don’t think the latter is a critical threat — rather, we disagree about the best means by which to deal with that threat.
By the way, I’m curious as to your feelings about Obama’s approach to these issues, outlined in this speech (I don’t normally want to foist reading material this long on someone, by the way).