I want to ask my friend from Michigan or my friend from Maryland to explain how you relate two parts of the Levin amendment. One, yes, does say you affirm the right of the U.S. to self-defense, but then, two sections lower, it seems to me, you cut a very big exception, and you say ``pursuant.'' And because you say ``pursuant,'' I assume it means only pursuant to a U.N. Security Council resolution can the President authorize the use of ``the Armed Forces of the United States to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, ballistics missiles . . . and related facilities. . . .'' So it is one thing to affirm the general right of self-defense, but then the amendment takes it away with regard to what we all acknowledge is the most serious threat that Iraq constitutes to the U.S., which is weapons of mass destruction.
Joe Lieberman: “I want to ask my friend from Michigan or my friend from Maryland to explain how you relate two parts of the Levin…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of the Levin amendment on U.S. self-defense and military action regarding Iraq.
Share
More from Joe Lieberman
I hope you Members of the Committee in this session will similarly rise to the challenge of this moment and this problem and work together to get something good and great done for our country.
I'm going to continue to do what I've always done and even more so, which is to work across party lines with my colleagues to get things done for my state and country. To me, that is my singular mission. And I'll work with anybody I agree…
It has mattered to me because there are two great American constitutional principles that are at the heart of the cause of D.C. statehood and that are violated every day in the current treatment of residents of the District of Columbia.





