Amending the War Authorization

By now, most Americans have heard of the plan hatched by Senators Robert Byrd and Hillary Clinton to amendment the 2002 authroization for the use of military force that allowed President Bush to begin fighting in Iraq. Captian Ed, has a good summary of what is happening and some analysis. For Clinton, the move is entirely about her campaign (which is not surprising)

Make that a campaign stunt. Hillary wants to build some anti-war credibility for what has turned into a tough primary fight. She needs to atone for her vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, and what better way than to write a bill to revoke that authorization? She can do so safe in the knowledge that it will never pass, and that she will bear no responsibility for the result.

That's been the entire Democratic strategy. Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman make the laughable statement that Democrats are searching for ways to end the war. They have a Constitutional mechanism for doing just that, and it bypasses a veto by simply stopping the funds for the war. However, that would leave Democrats responsible for the catastrophe that would follow an American retreat from Iraq and its devastating impact on the Middle East and our credibility against radical Islamist terrorists. They're not looking for a way out, they're looking to score partisan points, and Hillary has just decided to play the game.

Sure Hillary Clinton needs to atone for her vote for the authorization bill in 2002, unlike her rivals Obama and Edwards, even Bill Richardson was not put in the position of having to decided. However, Clinton's actions are not only the wrong tactic since her new (renewed) oppostion to the war is going to come back and bite her in the general election should she survive the primary battle, but hypocritical as well.

Right now there are three types of politicians on the matter of the war. There are those who voted to give the President the authority to conduct military operations and continue to support that position. There are those who voted against the authorization in the first place and continue to adhere to that position. These two groups are worthy of respect for they are principaled people. I may not agree with their position in opposition to the war, but I can respect their belief and we can agee to disagree.

But the third group, the one that has changed their position. The only question to aks these people is whether, had the course of operations in Iraq been more patently successful, would their position still have changed. The answer for these people is likely not. In fact, I would suspect that many, including Senator Clinton, would be tripping over themselves to claim some credit or at least issue an "I told you so." This is the hypocrisy of the "I was for the war now I am against the war" crowd. Their support is based solely on whether we are winning or losing in their eyes. Since we don't seem to be doing well, then they must be anti-war.

Principled decision making is necessary in elected officials. If a leader makes positions and policy statements based on principles and adheres to those principles, then whether I agree with those policies or posisitions, I can accept that we have a fundamental disagreement. But unprincipled, wishy-washy, "what's the latest poll say" decision making implies a lack of principles and a lack of a spine. That is not someone I want occupying the White House.