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

[FrenchieCat]

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