|
Remembering back to last fall, I wonder if there were other factors at play for the Democratic vote to allow Bush to make his case at the UN?
For those of you that believe in the LIHOP theory (and I count myself in this group), I think an unspoken factor for the Democrats voting for the war was quite prgmatic.
Let's say that the Democrats had voted, en masse, against the war. I think this should have been the case with most Democrats....allow UN inspections to continue working, no WMD had been found, continued support of the containment policy were all reasonable Democratic positions and a strong basis to vote against Bush on his request.
But let's not forget a few background things here.
(1) 9/11 was only 12 months past and no public investigation (2) The Anthrax attacker on Democrats was still not caught. (3) A mid-term election was weeks away.
If the Democrats had been solidly behind an "anti-war" vote, how many here doubt another terrorist "event" would not have occurred? Can you imagine how that would have worked out to this administration's favor? Would not the Democratic Party become the "Appeasers of Terrorists"? Would this have given Ashcroft and Bush carte blanche on implementing a crackdown on "terrorist sympathizers"? WOuld martial law have been implemented? Would the Republican controlled Congress begin calling for McCarthy-style hearings to ID the terrorists who were un-American in not supporting this "popular, wartime President"?
If the Democrats had truly voted their conscience on that vote, would we even have a DU to post on today?
My gut tells me that Democrats may very well have had their own suspicions that they were being set-up on the vote and that they chose not to let "them" use this vote as an opportunity to kill dissent in this country.
|