I don't buy the I voted for the Iraq War BS

[MissWaverly]

Read here what John Dean says about Bush's argument to go to war, if he took the time
to research the source materials and found it feeble then our Senators should have done the same thing. It was their job to research it, to vote for war knowing that they had thoroughly investigated the case for war and found it justified. I don't support anyone who didn't take the trouble to do what John Dean did. They have already failed the test
to vote in the best interest of the United States.

"Curious myself, I decided to parse Bush's argument for War with Iraq. With only a few hours of research on-line, reading source documents that the President himself had cited,
which were publicly posted by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. Department
of State, the CIA and the United Nations, I was amazed at the patently misleading use of
the material Bush had presented to Congress. Did he believe no one would check? The falsification was not merely self-evident, it was feeble and disturbing."

quotation taken from John W. Dean's Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George
W. Bush, page 146, Warner Books, NY 2005

[pnwmom]

1. What would have happened if the Democrats voted against the Oct. IWR?

In Oct. 2002, some Democrats joined with Republicans to pass a compromise Iraq War Resolution, containing language that the Democrats hoped would restrict Bush from going into Iraq without finding WMD, and without UN approval.

Why might they have done this even though they knew the case was weak? Because they knew Bush was determined to attack Iraq. If the Oct. IWR had failed to pass, then all Bush had to do was wait for January 2003 and have the new Republican majority pass a NEW IWR resolution, without any of the compromise language that had been included to get Democratic support for the bill. It would have given Bush a blank check to carry out his endeavors in the Middle East, and it wouldn't have been restricted to Iraq -- Bush had already indicated that he wanted Congress to authorize attacks anywhere in the Middle East. If Bush had had his preferred version of the IWR -- the one that would have passed in January 2003, without the need for a single Democratic vote -- he would have had a free hand to attack Syria and Iran. Does anyone think that this wouldn't have already happened by now, if Bush HAD been given the blank check that he asked for?

So this was the choice Democrats faced: they could vote for the Oct IWR, on the condition that it contain language that they hoped would put some limitations on Bush's actions. Or they could vote against it as a group, and watch it fail. In that case, they would almost certainly have been watching from the sidelines in January 2003, as the new Republican-only IWR passed, giving Bush a free hand in the Middle East.

[AtomicKitten]

4. six words in the IWR dispute your argument

The IWR abdicated Congress' constitutionally-mandated power to declare ware and gave to Junior alone.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.

BIG EFFIN MISTAKE.

[pnwmom]

5. Nowhere in the IWR does it authorize him to attack

anywhere in the Middle East.

[AtomicKitten]

7. aaarrghh!! That's the point .... they gave him a blank check

... to do whatever the hell he wants and Junior has stretched that to mean spying on Americans and running torture camps. The Democrats basically said okeedokee and signed over the checks and balances they were put in office to provide.

[pnwmom]

10. No, they didn't give him a blank check.

You're taking that phrase completely out of context.

But if the Republican version of the IWR had been passed, that WOULD have been a blank check.

[SOS]

42. The IWR was a blank check

Let's look at the actual law:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

So who decides whether Iraq is a "continuing threat"? Read on...

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether the non-existent "efforts" had met with success.
Surprise! Bush determined that diplomacy or other peaceful means were not adequate. Didn't see that coming!

Senator Byrd was right. It was a blank check.

btw - there was no "compromise bill". All Democratic amendments were defeated.

[pnwmom]

15. Did you miss Chuck Hagel saying that Bush wanted approval for attacking

ANYWHERE? If he had waited for January to get approval from his Republican majority, we would be in even deeper trouble now.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/hagel-iraq-resolution

HAGEL: Finally, begrudgingly, sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

[MissWaverly]

17. Well, who says the Republicans should have rubberstamped

this madness, the last time I looked they are sworn to defend the constitution as well
as their democratic brethern. Where is the respect for the rule of law and their
sworn obligation to provide oversight of the executive branch esp. when it veers
off into the realm of criminality like renditions, illegal wars and torture.

[pnwmom]

23. Of course they shouldn't have. But it wasn't unreasonable for

some Democrats to be afraid that they would. Was it?

[MissWaverly]

37. we asked people to go and die for us

our congressman should have stood up and fought for us in the Congress, this should have
been debated, it's the least we can expect of our governing body when they ask our men
and women to risk their lives based on their decisions

[MissWaverly]

39. I am sorry, I am sure that you are convinced you are right

But I was born after WW II, we heard so much about Hitler and never again, you cannot
placate someone by appeasing them, the more you give in, the more they will take, the
American people now will have to live with this war forever, it will be on the books
and the world will condemn it, we did the wrong thing, no, ifs ands or buts about it.

[leftofthedial]

13. what part of 3(a)

are you having trouble understanding?


EVERYONE ON THE PLANET knew he would attack Iraq.

[pnwmom]

24. And what part of my posts don't you understand?

Yes, we knew he was determined to attack Iraq.

So this was our choice: craft a compromise IWR in October and allow some Democrats to join with the Republicans to approve it.

Or, vote en masse as Democrats to defeat the compromise bill.
Then, in January, with new Republican majorities in Congress, we could watch Bush submit a new war resolution and get it passed without needing a single Democratic vote. And this version of the war resolution would have given him a blank check to attack anywhere in the Middle East, and possibly even Greece or parts of Asia.

Some people are wishing we had defeated the Oct. IWR, so we could all sit around and say, "I told you so." The problem with that is, if Bush had had the war resolution he really wanted -- the one Hagel described -- we'd be even worse off than we are now. . . hard as that may be to imagine.

On edit: I see now where the confusion came in. When I said that nowhere in the IWR was he authorized to attack anywhere in the Middle East, I meant:

The IWR that was passed allowed him to attack Iraq (under certain conditions) but not to attack anywhere else in the Middle East.
On the other hand, the war resolution that Bush had wanted would have allowed him (according to Hagel) to attack anywhere in the Middle East . . . and beyond!

[leftofthedial]

35. a convoluted chain of "reasoning"

that boils down to typical congressional Democratic practice of putting political expediency over principle.

Democrats have triangulated themselves into oblivion. "Explaining" it doesn't change anything.

The IWR *is* a blank check. In black and white. For all who are paying attention to see.

Tens or hundreds of millions of ordinary people around the world knew this. All the alibiing in the world now by and on behalf of "Democratic" presidential candidates is too little too late and an insult.

[MissWaverly]

8. I am sorry but I don't agree

if the argument for the war was weak, they were not justified in passing it based
on political considerations.

[loyalsister]

22. That's a lot of assumptions

1. being that the Democrats would have lost and that no Republicans would have had some sense about it. You don't even have to get to stoping it. They simply did not ask enough questions.

[pnwmom]

27. You have to make some assumptions anytime you make a decision.

The question is whether the assumptions are reasonable.

By October, 2002, it was quite reasonable to assume that the Republicans were going to achieve majorities in the election that was only weeks away. Bush had been riding high in the opinion polls ever since 9/11, and the Republicans were flying in on his coattails.

And it was quite reasonable, given the behavior of the Republicans ever since Bush took office, to expect that they would have approved anything that he asked for.

You might have disagreed, but it wasn't that the Democrats were stupid or unreasonable. They assessed the situation and made their best educated guess about Bush's tactics. That's all that they or anybody could do, lacking 20/20 hindsight or a crystal ball.

[MissMarple]

2. Political cowardice....what else would it be?

I know that sounds cynical, but :shrug:

I'm sure they didn't have a clue that things would be this bad, that this administration would be so abysmally incompetent.

[MissWaverly]

9. remember there was a pre-emptive strike

it would have been hard to justify even if Bush had strong arguments

[pnwmom]

28. Bush wouldn't have needed to justify a pre-emptive strike

if his requested version of a war resolution had passed in January 2003. He would have had an entirely free hand.

[pnwmom]

11. Political prudence.

The IWR limited the President's authority to Iraq only.
If the Democrats had defeated the October, compromise version of the bill, the Republicans were poised to enact their own version in January 2003 (when they wouldn't need any Democratic votes) -- which would have given the President the authority to attack anywhere in the Middle East, and wouldn't have contained the provisions related to the U.N. or the WMD's.

[MissWaverly]

18. well, maybe if the Democrats had stood up

the American people would not have bought this lie, you don't see social security privatized
do you, or what about abortion banned, or Terri Schiavo kept alive or immigrants rounded
up and deported, every one of the 11 million of them?

[pnwmom]

25. Have you forgotten the mood of the country in October 2002?

It was barely a year after 9/11. National television covered Colin Powell's appearance before the U.N., showing his fake evidence of WMD's. Rice warned of mushroom clouds over American cities. And Bush was still dreadfully popular.

There was nothing we could have done to turn the mood of the country around in the few short months between October and January, when the new Republican majorities rolled in. Our only real choice was to approve a war resolution that was specifically limited to Iraq only -- or watch the Republicans in January authorize Bush to make war practically anywhere.

[MissWaverly]

36. Look at the number of people that died from this stupid war

The Iraqis did not attack us, we attacked them w/o sufficienct cause.

[pretzel4gore]

3. especially considering harken oil, junyer's dui's and grandpa...

even John's analysis is too neat imo

[MissWaverly]

6. well, a real debate might have sunk it

because there was nothing substantial holding it up, hard questions should have been asked

[pnwmom]

12. So what if the Democrats HAD sunk the IWR in October 2002?

The Republicans would have dredged it up again in January 2003, when they had their majorities, and approved a newly polished version giving Bush a free hand anywhere in the Middle East.

The Democrats were stuck with an awful choice: vote for the bad October resolution, but try to insert some mitigating language in it in exchange for their votes; or stand by while the Republicans passed their own, even worse, version in January.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/hagel-iraq-resolution/

From Think Progress:

HAGEL: Finally, begrudgingly, sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

[MissWaverly]

16. NO

If they had stood up and said there's not enough evidence, and gone on the talk shows
instead of nodding their heads, we would not have had a war, people were scared into
the war, they were lied to about mushroom clouds, etc. If people had stood up like they
are now, we wouldn't have had a war, it was their job to provide oversight, to keep
america safe from wars over nothing. Yes, it would not have been easy, it was not easy
when my grandfather participated in one of the early strikes, the president called in
the national guard to break the strike and the blood ran down the street, and still
the strikers keep it up, and a lot of people were better off, we can't just throw up
our hands when the going gets tough. I am not voting for anybody that went along with
this illegal, immoral war because it was the easiest thing to do.

[pnwmom]

31. They didn't vote for it because they thought it was the easiest thing to do.

I think they thought it was the best they could do.

You're assuming that the same American population that was mesmerized by Colin Powell's presentation and by Condi Rice's dire warnings about mushroom clouds, the same public that had been in love with Bush ever since 9/11, could have made a complete turnaround in a few short months. Even though the MM was and is in the pocket of the Republican party.

You're an idealist. I'm not. Maybe that's the difference.

[MissWaverly]

38. no, I think if there had been vocal opposition to the war

it would have made an effect, if Ted Kennedy had stood up and stated the facts people would
have listened.

[Clark2008]

14. I was a suburban housewife with a toddler at the time and even

I knew that there was no reason to go to war in Iraq.

How come I knew with very little "military and secret intelligence" that it was wrong and these people in Congress didn't?

[MissWaverly]

19. Yeah, it was the whole chorus line behind Bush

there were all the fear masters: Cheney, and Conde Rice and Colin Powell at the UN
and all the media pundits and all the newspapers.

[pnwmom]

26. They knew it, but what real choice did they have?

This is the choice they had:

In October 2002, they could join with the Republicans to craft a compromise bill that limited Bush to attacking Iraq only. And then some Democrats could vote with the Republicans to approve it.

Or they could vote en masse as a party and defeat it. Then what? Then sit back in January, 03, and watch Bush get authorization -- without needing a single Democratic vote -- for his OWN version of the war resolutiion -- the one without any of the Democratic conditions. The one that, according to Hagel in a recent interview, would have allowed Bush to attack not just Iraq, but virtually anywhere.

Would we really have been better off if a Republican Congress had rubber stamped Bush's request for a virtually unlimited authority to wage war anywhere?

I can't blame the Democrats who thought we would be much worse off.

[bread_and_roses]

33. hypothetical theoreticals do not justify their craven vote

I could come up with a completely different set of hypotheticals. Perhaps if the Democrats had not given that miserable puppet his "bi-partisan" cover and had exposed his weak case for war there would have been a stronger and louder resistance. Maybe it would have taken less time for public opinion to turn against the war so decisively. Maybe the Democrats would not have been so slow to speak out against the conduct of the war and the civilian slaughter. Maybe we would have won the '04 election. Who knows? You can't justify their craven, image-driven politics with hypotheticals.

[pnwmom]

34. My assumptions are far more likely than yours, given that the President

was still riding high on his popularity post 9/11. By October, it was clear that a Republican takeover of Congress was almost inevitable. Colin Powell was solemnly lying to the UN about the WMD and Rice was warning about mushroom clouds over US cities. The media was in Bush's pocket. There's no way the Democrats could have turned public opinion around in time to stop the war.

[rosesaylavee]

20. Anyone with access to the internet

should have known better. Period. These congress critters have staff, yes? Were there so few thinking individuals that figured it out and were not able to persuade others to the fact that the reasons to go to war were based on old and/or fabricated information? (rhetorical question)

[pnwmom]

29. Perhaps they knew more than you did.

Here's what Chuck Hagel had to say in a recent interview. He was talking about the IWR, the first version that Bush had sent to Congress for approval in October, 2002.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/hagel-iraq-resoluti...

HAGEL: Finally, begrudgingly, (the White House) sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

----

So this is the real choice the Democrats faced in October 2002, with Bush still riding high on his post 9/11 popularity. They could work with the Republicans to craft a compromise bill that included language about finding WMD's and working with the UN; and then some Democrats could join with the Republicans to approve it.

Or all the Democrats could vote en masse to defeat the October compromise bill. Then, they could watch the new Republican majorities roll in in January, when Bush would resubmit his preferred version of a war resolution. The one that didn't mention WMD's or the UN and allowed him to attack virtually anywhere. And knowing everything we know about the Congress, they would have given him the blank check he wanted.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Correct.......

I knew.

I marched.

they voted for it anyways.

We went to war.

Now we are there.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

[pnwmom]

30. I marched then, too. But I have a different point of view now,

about the reasoning behind some of the Senator's votes. Please look at my post just above this one (#29). Thanks.

[LWolf]

32. The point, for me, is this:

Bush may have been determined to go to Iraq; PNAC positions support that, don't they?

Congressional Democrats may not have been able to stop him, but they didn't have to give him a mandate.

There's a difference between doing something that a large part of your government opposes and going forward able to claim a mandate.

[geek tragedy]

40. Some of those Democrats WANTED war with Iraq./

For instance, John Edwards (DLC-NC).

[MissWaverly]

41. Yes, and some Dems want a war with Iran, that's not right

we can't go to war based on oil, the longer this drumbeat for war in
the M.E. continues, the more I am convinced it's about oil, oil, oil. Iraq has never
attacked us, Iran has never attacked us and Osama is still not found, in a real
world anyone who has supported these crazy ideas would be shunned for someone who
has a real handle on what needs done but not in Bush Bubbleworld.