Most elected Democrats voted *against* war in Iraq

[bigtree]

50. *most* Democrats voted consistently for the funding of that occupation, from the start

...which is the most substantial way wars are waged and approved (or ended with an end to the funding) by our legislators.

What was significant about Hillary Clinton's vote is the way in which she accepted almost all of Bush's description of a threat. The other fault was the naivete she displayed in believing Bush would proceed with restraint. Granted, she wasn't alone in her faulty reasoning that Bush would heed hers and others' admonitions against 'preemptive war' and unilateral war, but there's certainly a good argument that she shouldn't have trusted Bush.

I suppose you can also conclude that, as a politician, she was trying to provide a smokescreen with all of her admonitions in her floor speech, believing she could have it both ways; appearing to approve the invasion if it went swimmingly, and appearing to oppose it if it didn't. It was certainly not a profile in courage, and it was the same type of investment into the war posture our current president has adopted, despite all of the nonsense that he took a decidedly different approach to the use of military force in Iraq or elsewhere abroad (albeit, with Barack Obama operating in a far more restrained way than Bush; even despite his escalation of force in Afghanistan far beyond Bush's numbers and the sacrificing of over 1000 more lives there defending Karzai's government than Bush did avenging 9-11).

Re-read Sen. Hillary Clinton's floor speech on the "Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" October 10, 2002. It's a political masterpiece in present-day rationalization for warring; yes, even the preemptive war she counsels against in that speech.

However, make no mistake about where the true authority for presidents to war comes from. It's contained in each and every appropriations bill which funds the troops in the field. Wars are ended when Congress pulls down the funding; maybe not precipitously, but substantially pulls the plug on operations by drying up the money used to continue. Giving legislators a pass on support for the Iraq invasion and operation by pointing to their votes against the 2002 AUMF is an remarkable disconnect from the legislative process which defends and maintains the 'authority' presidents have to wage war. Funding is the key and most important lever Congress has in the balance of power in our government. In that regard, *most* Democrats failed the test of whether they actually opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation.

In another fault, *most* Democrats have also failed that test in their refusal to or neglect in calling for a repeal of that ass-covering 2002 AUMF today, over a decade after the invasion - Or, as Pres. Obama relies on AUMFs to cover his own military actions in Iraq and Syria today, the 2001 9-11 AUMF should also be opposed by anyone claiming to actually disapprove of war in Iraq.