Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - May 4, 2007
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.
She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.
Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.
Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the original authorization has been a persistent problem in her presidential bid when contrasted with the positions of other Democratic contenders.
Former Senator John Edwards has repudiated his vote for the war. After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.
“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”
Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, cites his consistent opposition to the war. Mr. Obama issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he would support the effort by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd.
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - May 4, 2007
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.
She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.
Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.
Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the original authorization has been a persistent problem in her presidential bid when contrasted with the positions of other Democratic contenders.
Former Senator John Edwards has repudiated his vote for the war. After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.
“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”
Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, cites his consistent opposition to the war. Mr. Obama issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he would support the effort by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd.
