It’s really amusing to read Lincoln Chafee’s scolding NYT’s editorial, taking to task all the Senate’s presidential contenders for voting against the Levin Amendment to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. As an aside, there were actually four votes. In addition to the Levin amendment, there was also a Byrd amendment, a Durbin amendment and the final vote on the bill. For a refresher, here are the Senators that voted for the Levin amendment:

Daniel Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Kent Conrad, Jon Corzine, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Jack Reed, Jay Rockefeller, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow, Paul Wellstone, Ron Wyden, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chafee

You might notice that Russ Feingold isn’t on this list. I don’t know why, but he chose to support the Byrd and Durbin amendments, and he also voted against the final AUMF bill. Here’s what Chafee has to say about the Levin amendment.

Update [2007-3-1 17:28:45 by BooMan]: Feingold’s office sent along the following clarification on Levin amendment vote:

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

Opposing the Levin Amendment

October 10, 2002

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to briefly comment on Senator Levin’s alternative proposal relating to Iraq. Some of my colleagues for whom I have tremendous respect have tried to address the fact that the administration’s proposal is simply not good enough by emphasizing the desirability of a United Nations resolution, thus transforming this dangerous unilateral proposal into an internationally sanctioned multilateral mission. But while I recognize that international support is a crucial ingredient in any recipe for addressing the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq without undercutting the fight against terrorism, I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress’s proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, 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. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. 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 — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election…

…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.

Dodd and Kerry voted for the Durbin amendment, which would have amended ‘the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’ But, when that amendment failed, they caved on the AUMF. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Edwards got all four votes wrong. All four.

In November 2005, John Edwards came out and said simply, “I was wrong.” In June of 2006, John Kerry followed suit:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission “a mistake.”

“We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true,” Kerry said. “It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it].”

Here’s what Hillary Clinton is saying:

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from.”

Indeed. Clinton got all four votes wrong and she refuses to apologize. It doesn’t matter whether she would have taken us into Iraq if she was the President. She gave the President all the authority he needed and refused to limit that power in any way by supporting any of the amendments. She still refuses to acknowledge the depth of her error and her share of the responsibility for the fiasco in Iraq. As Lincoln Chafee says, “Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.”

And it’s not just the Levin amendment.