Politics

Shadow of Clinton War Vote Hangs Over Other 2016 Contenders

Published

9 years ago

February 14, 2015

Reporter II

FILE - In this Dec. 17, 2014 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2014. In 2002, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton took a vote in favor of the Iraq war that would come to haunt her presidential prospects. Now, a new generation of senators weighing White House bids _ Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz _ will have to make a similar choice about President Barack Obamas use of force request. Clinton, too, will face questions about her position on Obamas proposal, but this time has the advantage of avoiding an actual vote on the Senate floor. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Dec. 17, 2014 file photo, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Julie Pace, ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — In 2002, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cast a vote in favor of the Iraq war that would later come to haunt her presidential campaign.

Now, a new crop of senators eying the White House — Republicans Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas — will face a similar choice over authorizing military action in the Middle East.

A vote in favor of President Barack Obama’s use-of-force resolution would give the potential candidates a share of the responsibility for the outcome of military action in a combustible region. And as Clinton learned well, the public’s support for a military campaign can quickly fade, making the long-term implications of the vote difficult to predict.

Obama asked lawmakers this week to approve a three-year offensive against the Islamic State group and affiliated forces. His request includes no constraints on geographical boundaries but would bar “enduring offensive combat” — intentionally vague language that some lawmakers fear leaves open the prospect of a U.S.-led ground war.

So far, most of the 2016 hopefuls currently in Congress have sidestepped questions about how they would vote on Obama’s measure, which could be amended before they have to say yes or no. Among Republicans, Rubio has been perhaps the most specific in outlining his views, saying he opposes the president putting constraints on his ability to use military force against an enemy.

“What we need to be authorizing the president to do is to destroy them and to defeat them, and allow the commander in chief — both the one we have now and the one who will follow — to put in place the tactics, the military tactics, necessary to destroy and defeat ISIL,” Rubio said, using a common acronym for the Islamic State group.

A spokesman for Paul said Friday that the senator is reviewing the legislation but has not decided how he would vote. Cruz has called for Congress to “strengthen” the legislation by making sure the president is committed to clear objectives. He also has suggested the authorization should include a provision to directly arm the Iraqi Kurds, but it is unclear what other changes he wants to see.

Despite Americans’ war weariness, there is public support for formally authorizing the mission. An NBC News/Marist poll released Friday showed that 54 percent of respondents want their member of Congress to vote for Obama’s request.

Clinton, who is laying the groundwork for another presidential run, will also be pressed to take a position. But this time around, she will have the advantage of weighing in from the outside, without the pressure of voting.

“You can talk about the subject without actually being pinned down on a particular vote that you’re going to have to defend for years to come,” said Jim Manley, a longtime aide to the late Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who worked to get Clinton and other Democrats to vote against the 2002 war authorization.

Clinton has made no public comments since Obama sent lawmakers the draft legislation earlier this week, and her spokesman did not respond to a fresh request for her position Friday.

The former secretary of state has previously called the fight against the Islamic State a “long-term struggle” and has said military action is essential to prevent the group from making further advances.

The military campaign against the Islamic State militants began six months ago, and Obama is, in effect, seeking Congress’ approval retroactively. He has said the current mission is legally justified under the 2002 authorization President George W. Bush used to start the Iraq war — the resolution Clinton voted for.

By the time Obama and Clinton faced off in the 2008 Democratic primary, the Iraq war was deeply unpopular. Obama saw Clinton’s vote for the military conflict as a way to draw a distinction with his better-known rival, arguing that while he was not in the Senate in 2002, he would have voted against giving Bush the war powers.

The 2002 vote and its political implications have continued to shadow the way lawmakers have responded to war-power requests.

In 2013, Congress balked at Obama’s request to authorize strikes in Syria and never held a vote. And while congressional leaders pushed the president for months to seek authorization for the Islamic State campaign, lawmakers insisted Obama be the one to actually draft a resolution.

As with Obama’s current request, there was public support for Bush’s Iraq resolution in 2002. A Gallup Poll a few weeks before the high-stakes vote found that 57 percent of Americans said Congress should “pass a resolution to support sending American ground troops to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” About 38 percent said it should not.

As the Iraq war dragged on, and the death toll and financial costs mounted, the conflict became deeply unpopular.

By the time Clinton and Obama were facing off for the Democratic nomination, surveys showed a majority of Americans believed going into Iraq was the wrong decision — a warning for potential 2016 candidates trying to read the tea leaves ahead of their own war powers vote.

___

AP writer Ken Thomas and AP News Survey Director Emily Swanson contributed to this report.

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

###

Reporter II

Posts by Reporter II

Up Next

Home Care Workers Demand Gov. Brown Keep His Promise of Overtime Pay

Don't Miss

Amid Race Talk, FBI Struggles to Hire Black Agents

Reporter II

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 8 – 14, 2024

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May May 8 – 14, 2024

Published

2 days ago

May 10, 2024

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

S.F. Black Leaders Rally to Protest, Discuss ‘Epidemic’ of Racial Slurs Against Black Students in SF Public School System

Parents at the meeting spoke of their children as no longer feeling safe in school because of bullying and discrimination. Parents also said that reported incidents such as racial slurs and intimidation are not dealt with to their satisfaction and feel ignored.

Published

1 week ago

May 4, 2024

Oakland Post

Rev. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP and pastor of Third Baptist Church. Photo courtesy Third Baptist Church.

By Carla Thomas

San Francisco’s Third Baptist Church hosted a rally and meeting Sunday to discuss hatred toward African American students of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD).

Rev. Amos C. Brown, president of the San Francisco NAACP and pastor of Third Baptist Church, along with leadership from local civil rights groups, the city’s faith-based community and Black community leadership convened at the church.

“There has been an epidemic of racial slurs and mistreatment of Black children in our public schools in the city,” said Brown. “This will not be tolerated.”

According to civil rights advocate Mattie Scott, students from elementary to high school have reported an extraordinary amount of racial slurs directed at them.

“There is a surge of overt racism in the schools, and our children should not be subjected to this,” said Scott. “Students are in school to learn, develop, and grow, not be hated on,” said Scott. “The parents of the children feel they have not received the support necessary to protect their children.”

Attendees were briefed last Friday in a meeting with SFUSD Superintendent Dr. Matt Wayne.

SFUSD states that their policies protect children and they are not at liberty to publicly discuss the issues to protect the children’s privacy.

Some parents said they have removed their students from school while other parents and community leaders called on the removal of the SFUSD superintendent, the firing of certain school principals and the need for more supportive school board members.

Community advocates discussed boycotting the schools and creating Freedom Schools led by Black leaders and educators, reassuring parents that their child’s wellbeing and education are the highest priority and youth are not to be disrupted by racism or policies that don’t support them.

Virginia Marshall, chair of the San Francisco NAACP’s education committee, offered encouragement to the parents and students in attendance while also announcing an upcoming May 14 school board meeting to demand accountability over their mistreatment.

“I’m urging anyone that cares about our students to pack the May 14 school board meeting,” said Marshall.

This resource was supported in whole or in part by funding provided by the State of California, administered by the California State Library via California Black Media as part of the Stop the Hate Program. The program is supported by partnership with California Department of Social Services and the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs as part of the Stop the Hate program. To report a hate incident or hate crime and get support, go to CA vs Hate.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Board of Supervisors Accepts Certification of Signatures, Will Schedule Recall Election May 14

The Alameda Board of Supervisors unanimously accepted the certification of the results of the valid signatures submitted for the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price on Tuesday evening. The Board will set the election date at a special meeting on May 14. Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Published

1 week ago

May 4, 2024

Oakland Post

District Attorney Pamela Price ‘Protect the Win’ supporters held signs outside of the County Administration Office to ask the Board of Supervisors to not schedule a special recall election. Photo by Magaly Muñoz.

By Magaly Muñoz

Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Price, who up until this point has made little public comment about the recall, held her press conference in Jack London to announce that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into the finances of the Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE) recall campaign.

The political action committee (PAC), Reviving the Bay Area, has been the largest contributor to the SAFE organization and has allegedly donated over half a million dollars to the recall efforts.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, [Revive the Bay Area] donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” Price said.

Price accused the recall campaigns of using irregular signature-gathering processes, such as paying gatherers per signature, and using misleading information to get people to sign their petitions.

SAFE held their own press conference outside of the Alameda County Administration Building at 1221 Oak St. in Oakland, once again calling for the Board to certify their signatures and set a date for the recall election.

Their press conference turned contentious quickly as Price’s “Protect the Win” supporters attempted to yell over the SAFE staff and volunteers. “Stop scapegoating Price” and “Recall Price” chants went on for several moments at a time during this event.

Families of victims urged the Board to think of their loved ones whose lives are worth much more than the millions of dollars that many opponents of the recall say is too much to spend on a special election.

The Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates the special election could cost anywhere from $15 to $20 million, an amount that is not in their budget.

The Board was presented with several options on when and how to conduct the recall election. They have to set a date no less than 88 days or more than 125 days after May 14, meaning the date could fall anywhere from late July to September.

But the County charter also states that if a general election takes place within 180 days of their scheduling deadline, the Board could choose to use the November ballot as a way to consolidate the two events.

In the event that Price is recalled, the Supervisors would appoint someone to fill the vacancy, though neither the County nor the California charter specifies how long they would have to pick a replacement.

The appointee would serve as district attorney spot until the next election in 2026. Afterwards, either they, if they run and win, or a newly elected candidate would serve the rest of Price’s six-year term until 2029. Price is unique as the only district attorney wo serves a term of six years.

The Board acknowledged that they knew last fall that this recall would come with its own set of complications when Measure B, which changed the local recall charter to match California’s, was first brought to their consideration.

Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert opposed discussing the measure, stating that the public would think that the Board was attempting to influence the recall campaign that had already taken off months prior.

“I think ultimately this feels like it’s going to end up in court, one way or the other, depending on who files what,” Haubert said.

Price’s legal team told the Post that the district attorney intended to consider all legal options should the recall election take place.

Miley stated that while he was in support of the amendment to the charter, he did not think it was right to schedule it for the March ballot as it would ultimately cause confusion for everyone involved.

“It has produced some legal entanglements that I think, potentially, could’ve been avoided,” Miley said.