The mystery of Clinton's (and Kerry's) IWR vote

[ProfessorPlum]

One of the most aggrevating and perplexing issues for me in the primary season of 2004 was trying to get inside the heads of candidates who voted "yes" on the IWR. This was a particular issue for me with Kerry, and it is rearing its ugly head again with Clinton (and Edwards, for that matter). I think I've come closer to understanding it now, but it still represents a convoluted topic, and one that is misrepresented constantly, in the media and elsewhere.

What do we need to understand about that vote?

1) First of all, we have to remember that W. was going to war with or without the IWR. He had made that quite obviously clear and had already begun illegally diverting personel and money away from Afghanistan for his invasion of Iraq. Everyone knew this. For people to pretend that even a unanimous "no" vote from Congress would have stopped the war is a misrepresentation.

2) Influential senators like Biden were, at the time, begging Bush to bring the IWR to Congress for a vote, and promising him that Congress would rubber stamp it. The fact that the IWR even came up for a vote represents Bush accepting this deal: he would pretend that Congress still had some small amount of control in matters of making war if they agreed to let him do what he wanted anyway. So Bush was granting Congress a figleaf for their actual impotence. Why would Congress take this deal (and beg him for it)? Because they wanted a figleaf for their impotence.

3) Everyone knew that Iraq was not a threat to the US. As a conventional power, their strength was shattered, and they were much weaker than many countries who have the both the desire and means to actually attack us. As a collaborator with and potential source of weapons for terrorists, Iraq was WAY down on the list, which included Pakistan, rogue elements in Russia, Iran, etc. Plus the known fact that Saddam hated terrorists. Plus the fact that Iraq was well known to be a favored target of people in the administration for years and years. Plus the fact that they had cynically waited to wave this new "threat" in everyone's faces until there were Congressional elections happening. All signs pointed to this being a war of choice against a non-threat. Any arguments about the intelligence data and Iraqi weapons are merely, as they were intended to be, red herrings.

So now put yourself into the place of those Senators. Since the goal of the invasion was clearly to topple Saddam's government, you know this will lead to either occupation with insurgents or installation of a new strongman. The relative benefits of that to the US are debatable. The possibility of a short, popular war is still alive. The military-industrial complex, which clearly wants this war very badly, will use its media stranglehold to kill you with this vote if you vote no, whether the war turns out to be a huge disaster, or not. You know (or suppose) the Democratic party cannot survive without that sweet flow of empire-building military money. You are completely powerless to change what is about to happen, anyway.

Most of the reasons to vote "yes" are cynical and cowardly, choosing death, destruction, and waste so that you can go along to get along, keep the funders and media happy, satisfy the bloodlust of the neocons.

From my perspective, there are only two possible salutary or noble reasons for a "yes" vote:

A) to preserve the flimsy appearance of checks and balances, the Congress has to vote Yes so that it doesn't seem like the Executive can de facto do whatever it wants (and this is pretty weak tea as far as nobility goes, but at least it expresses a desire for us to appear as if the Constitution were still valid).

B) to preserve an appearance of unity in the country. The US is about to take a course of action which is of dubious outcome, and many citizens are against it. If the people's representatives in Congress give it their stamp of approval, America can be seen as taking this step willingly, keeping us all in it together. A "yes" vote creates the illusion that this tobaggan has a steering wheel.

You'll note that these two reasons create or preserve an illusion of something that isn't real anyway. But you could argue that helping to create an illusion that the people or Congress have some power in the process is a net positive.

No matter how I slice and dice them, the arguments for a "yes" vote just don't hold a candle to the punishments for "no" vote: getting yourself declared an enemy by the military American hegemony, a target of the status quo. In the end, I still find those "yes" votes nearly unforgiveable, in service to an illusion, and cowardly. The political adroitness of Karl Rove in creating this trap, into which so many Democrats fell because of their own inability to frame an issue, continues to cast a shadow over our candidates.

[beachmom]

1. Total CRAP!! Democrats did not want to have that vote just prior

to the midterm election.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. ????

me no understand

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. I think the argument is that there is a C)

C) Voted to politically cover their asses.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Absolutely - I thought I had made that clear

I just don't consider that to be a noble reason for the vote.

Hey, RIF. How are you doing?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

10. You did make it clear. My bad.

How ya doin'?

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Ah, the Torjan (sic) Horse.

How I've missed it.

:)

[Inuca]

6. Absolutely

This statement in the OP "Influential senators like Biden were, at the time, begging Bush to bring the IWR to Congress for a vote, and promising him that Congress would rubber stamp it" is such a complete BS that it's not even worth the trouble to refute with facts.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. The timing was obviously not to the Democrats' liking

But there is not doubt that the Congressional democrats wanted to get their votes on record before the invasion, to "force Bush to the UN" or "give inspectors the chance to work" or some other such nonsense.

[Armstead]

5. It was ultimately very simple

The whole Iraq flap was a manufactured crisis by the Bush administration, as an excuse to go into a war that they had wanted from the beginning.

Sadaam was a very bad man. However, he was simply one more ongoing source of friction in the world. If there were actual suspicions that he had something nefarious in mind, in terms of attacking the US with WMDs, it would have been possible to put more pressure for investigations without raising the specter of war.

The only reason Bush's plan had legitimacy was the underlying psychic fear of Mulsim countries following 9-11, and the resulting desire in the American Id for revenge that would make us feel better. Emotionally understandable, but totally illegitimate in terms of actions.

This was all crystal clear tom anyone who was paying the slightest bit of attention. All you had to do was listen to Bush's public words to know that he was predetermined to find any excuse to invade, no matter how flimsy.

IF the Democrats had shown spine, they would have called Bush out from the beginning of this "debate." A unified Democratic party that called Bush's bluff publicly would have done a lot to expose Bush's plans for what they were.

Too many Democrats chose to ignore that simple reality, and toss in a cowardly political calculation to prevent them from speaking an obvious truth out loud. Some may have done internal gyrations to justify their actions to themselves. But the fact remains that they had a chance to take a stand to oppose what what clearly happening, and they chose to go along with Bush out of political cowardice.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. My conclusion also

sadly . . .

[nightrider767]

8. No Brave Hearts in Congress..

Someone has to make a stand, take the fall and get "quartered" before progress can be made.

Few people in Congress with any real influence are leaping at that part.

[TexasObserver]

9. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards - all WRONG on IWR

All for the same reason: presidential ambition.

And they weren't the only Democrats playing that game in 2002.

They caved. They were wrong. Some admitted it. One won't.