"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the
authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq," the New York Times
reports:
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. . . .
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.
So let's see. Mrs. Clinton supported the war when it was popular, then changed
her position after public opinion shifted. She is now pretending Congress can
put the toothpaste back into the tube by "repealing" the authority for an
intervention that has already occurred. The legislation she is proposing has
little chance of passing, since significant Republican support would be needed
to override a veto. If it did pass, no one has any clue what practical effect
it would have. It would be left to federal judges to sort that out.
Mrs. Clinton is seeking the presidency, so maybe the idea here is to make the
job easier by delegating her commander-in-chief duties to Justice Anthony
Kennedy. It's hard to see how the Times can keep a straight face while calling
this "leadership," though.
.
|
