Chafee blasts the IWR Levin Amendment vote

[SOS]

Lincoln Chafee (R-RI, 1996-2006) writes a tough opinion piece in today's New York Times (edited):

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice
By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.
The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not.
On the contrary. There was a third way, which Senator James Jeffords (I-VT) hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

The Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin (D-MI) offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.
Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that hawkish moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. 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. 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Agree or disagree? Should both Republicans and Democrats be held to account for their Levin Amendment vote?