Would Bush have attacked Iraq without the IWR vote in Congress?

[WilliamPitt]

Someone posted the statement "The IWR vote cost lives" in another thread. Got me thinking. Was it the vote that cost lives, or the decision to use the vote as a premise for invasion?

Would/could Bush have invaded Iraq without the IWR vote? While answering, help me with my memory: Had Bush stacked troops on the border in October 2002? I ask because arraying hundreds of thousands of troops made the invasion inevitable, but I cannot recall if that happened in October or the winter.

[KittyWampus]

1. Yes, IMO IWR Just Made Bush's Unilateral Approach More Obvious

and ultimately highlights the illegality.

The IWR was NOT a green light to just go ahead.

[WilliamPitt]

3. But how?

What legal justification would have been made?

[sandnsea]

6. Legal justification????

You jest. "The U.S. has learned... fill in the blank."

[K-W]

14. Presidents have been going to war without congress for a long time.

thats just how it is now

[Yupster]

105. True enough

Clinton attacked Serbia without even asking congress one way or the other.

Don't remember if Bush asked congress before Panama. I'd guess no.

Reagan didn't ask congress before Grenada.

[GreenArrow]

97. "absence of evidence

is not evidence of absence."

As per Donald Rumsfeld

All the justification that would have been needed.

Assuming the inspectors had been allowed to "do their jobs" and assuming that they found nothing, (not a difficult assumption to make) their findings would have been used as proof that Sadaam was not compliant with the sanctions, and the war would have proceeded as planned, albeit with a broader international base.

The "war" and its various justifications were bogus in every particular.

[Forkboy]

2. Yep,he would have

which makes the people going along with it even lamer.If the vote made no difference than at least stand up for what was right,not what was wrong.

YMMV

[K-W]

13. You miss the point entirely

The vote mattered for the congressmen and not the Bush administration.
The democrats had this situation.

Bush was going to war.
The repubs would all vote for the resolution.

When the US goes to war, patriotism goes up, there is support for all wars, support the troops etc. There was good reason to believe that some shred of WMD's would be found. There was a strong likelyhood that Bush would be able to sell the war and then be able to justify it on WMD grounds.

If the war went well, any dem who voted against the resolution and wasnt in a safe district would have commited political suicide. If the war turned out popular, they would have put nails in thier political coffins.

For what?
A meaningless protest vote?

It is important to have ideological purists in this country. It is good to have them writing, speaking, advocating. We dont need them in congress. If we want to have any say in this country ever, we need to except that fact that the people we send to washington are going to get sucked into the bubble and that they are going to have to compromise and play the game of politics.

This is not to say they get a free pass, but in a vote that was 100% politics. You have to let them make the politically wise choice.

[CTLawGuy]

18. If that's what Representatives should do...

no one will ever oppose a war vote ever again, and we will become the permanent Warfare state. Every possible war has a CHANCE to be justified in some way. Reps. need to realize that they have a higher moral duty in government that goes beyond maximizing chances of staying in power.

[wtmusic]

120. Well put

What happened to just doing what's right?

[WilliamPitt]

19. Speaking with Ritter

and thinking about it since makes me realize the 'Yes' vote on the IWR essential to the establishment of efective weapons inspections. Only the threat of force made the previous inspections effective.

The US wrote Res. 1441. The US wrote "weapons inspections" into it. It was unanimously approved by the Security Council. The threat of force had to be there; Hussein had jerked around UNSCOM until we bombed him into compliance.

The threat of force got rid of the weapons from 1991-1998. The threat of force was needed to get rid of whatever he might have developed since.

====

PITT: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

RITTER: It's not black-and-white, as some in the Bush administration make it appear. There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability has been verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and long-range ballistic missiles; the associated equipment of these factories; and the vast majority of the products coming out of these factories.

Iraq was supposed to turn everything over to the United Nations, which would supervise its destruction and removal. Iraq instead chose to destroy – unilaterally, without UN supervision – a great deal of this equipment. We were later able to verify this. But the problem is that this destruction took place without documentation, which means the question of verification gets messy very quickly.

(snip)

PITT: Isn't VX gas a greater concern?

RITTER: VX is different, for a couple of reasons. First, unlike sarin and tabun, which the Iraqis admitted to, for the longest time the Iraqis denied they had a program to manufacture VX. Only through the hard work of inspectors were we able to uncover the existence of the program.

PITT: How did that happen?

RITTER: Inspectors went to the Muthanna State establishment and found the building the Iraqis had used for research and development. It had been bombed during the war, causing a giant concrete roof to collapse in on the lab. That was fortuitous, because it meant we essentially had a time capsule: lifting the roof and gaining access to the lab gave us a snapshot of Iraqi VX production on the day in January when the bomb hit. We sent in a team who behaved like forensic archaeologists. They lifted the roof – courageously, it was a very dangerous operation – went inside, and were able to grab papers and take samples that showed that Iraq did in fact have a VX research and development lab.

Caught in that first lie, the Iraqis said, "We didn't declare the program because it never went anywhere. We were never able to stabilize the VX." Of course the inspectors didn’t take their word for it, but pressed: "How much precursor did you build?" Precursor chemicals are what you combine to make VX. "How much VX did you make? Where did you dispose of it?" The Iraqis took the inspectors to a field where they'd dumped the chemicals. Inspectors took soil samples and indeed found degradation byproducts of VX and its precursors.

Unfortunately, we didn't know whether they dumped all of it or held some behind. So we asked what containers they'd used. The Iraqis pointed to giant steel containers provided by the Soviet Union to ship fuel and other liquids, which the Iraqis had converted to hold VX. The inspectors attempted to do a swab on the inside of the containers and found they'd been bleached out: there was nothing there. But one inspector noticed a purge valve on the end of the containers. The inspection team took a swab and found stabilized VX.

We confronted the Iraqis with their second lie. They took a fallback position: "OK, you're right, we did stabilize VX. But we didn't tell you about it because we never weaponized the VX. To us it's still not a weapons program. We decided to eliminate it on our own. As you can see, we've blown it up. It's gone, so there's no need to talk about it."

We caught them in that lie as well. We found stabilized VX in SCUD missiles demolished at the warhead destruction sites. The Iraqis had weaponized the VX, and lied to us about it.

We knew the Iraqis wanted to build a full-scale VX nerve agent plant, and we had information that they'd actually acquired equipment to do this. We hunted and hunted, and finally in 1996 were able to track down two hundred crates of glass-lined production equipment Iraq had procured specifically for a VX nerve agent factory. They'd been hiding it from the inspectors. We found it in 1996, and destroyed it. With that, Iraq lost its ability to produce VX.

All of this highlights the complexity of these issues. We clearly still have an unresolved VX issue in Iraq. Just as clearly Iraq has not behaved in a manner reflective of an honest effort to achieve resolution. And it's tough to work in a place where you've been lied to.

(snip)

Pitt: Considering everything you've experienced, how do you feel about the Iraqi government in general?

RITTER: The Iraqi government is firmly entrenched, having seen over thirty years of Ba'ath Party rule. The Ba'ath Party has seeped into every aspect of Iraqi life – cultural, economic, educational, political. It's irresponsible to oversimplify what's going on there, to try to somehow separate Saddam Hussein from the rest of the political machinery. It doesn't work that way.

I'm realistic in understanding that the Iraqi government is much stronger inside Iraq than most people give it credit for. I don't think people should take the Iraqi government too lightly. It's a brutal regime that has shown a disregard for international law and a definite disregard for human rights. It's a regime that has shown – as have many other governments around the world, including ours – an ability to lie to people about policy objectives. There's no need to beat around the Bush. The Iraqis failed to tell the truth. I understand this cannot be accepted. But in the world of politics, if you cut off all activity with those who tell lies, no one would be do business with anybody.

[Forkboy]

31. I read the book

:)

Still disagree with the assessment that the IWR vote was right,even in the context you've given here.This vote was a lot more than a threat to use force...it was the validation of Bush's desire.

The threat of using force could have been delivered in other ways that wouldn't have played right into Bush's hands,if that was the desire of the people who voted for it.

I admit I could be wrong,but that's my story and I'm sticking to it :)

[K-W]

33. How could it?

Please, please explain the strategy the dems could have taken that might have stopped Bush's plans, not made the situation in Iraq worse (thus playing into bush's plans again), and not been a stupidly dangerous political risk.

The dems vote no, then what?

[Kahuna]

94. Nothing would have stopped Bush. Nothing. But most of the Dems...

who were not up for reelection in 2002, did not need to go along with it politically. Anybody with a brain knows that * is a fuck up artist. Excuse my French, but that's what he is. It was bound to turn out poorly just because of the way that * was going about it.

I can excuse some of the Dems who were running in red states in 2002. But the others... They didn't have to do it.

[mike_c]

40. sorry, the "threat of force" is based upon the premise...

...that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD's from the inspectors, refusing to disarm, etc. It doesn't hold water because he had already complied with the U.N. mandate. What more was the "threat of force" meant to accomplish? He had complied, he said he had complied, and Hans Blixer was well on his way to certifying that he had complied. What need was there for an additional "threat of force?"

I believe that the whole charade was a smokescreen intended to hide both the administration's prior intent to invade under any circumstances and Congress's willingness to whore for a nice little patriotic war.

[paulk]

119. The IWR vote happened before UN resolution 1441

Oct 11th, 2002. The UN resolution 1441 was agreed to by Iraq on Nov 13th, 2002 - after which Mr. Blix began his WMD search.

So what you're saying isn't at all supported by the timeline of actual events.

[wtmusic]

121. Exactly--no connection

unless you want to argue that 1441 would not have happened without IWR (there's not a shred of evidence to support it).

[K-W]

4. Yes, without a doubt.

Too much is being made of the IWR vote. The democrats werent given much of a choice in the situation. Politically voting for it was really the only option.

[Forkboy]

11. "Politically voting for it was really the only option."

And therein lies the crux of the issue,and why so many are pissed.Politically it was the smart thing...Morally it was a bankrupt decision.

[K-W]

16. You have an odd conception of morality.

You could make an argument that by living to fight another day they put themselves in a position to be around for other votes that actually matter and thus a vote for the resoulution could save more lives than a vote against.

I understand its ugly, but you are blowing it so terrifically out of proportion. If they could not, with thier votes have stopped the war, and saved a single life, morality doesnt enter into it. You are confusing ideological purity with morality.

[Forkboy]

20. ah,the idealogical purity argument

You'll never get it.

buh bye

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

37. So it is immature to point out an immature cop-out argument?

Thats interesting. Meanwhile you just used the ever powerful "I know what you are, but what am I" argument.

To clarify for you, it is not immature to tell someone being immature to grow up. If someone doesnt want to debate my point, DONT POST.

[Kanary]

49. you might want to take a look at your control issues

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kanary]

78. You've won me over. I feel very close to you.

All warm and fuzzy like.

Let's hold hands, sing Kumbayah, and go register people to vote.

Kanary

[Forkboy]

35. Thanks but no thanks

I'm sick of people spouting off on idealogical purity when they themselves would be happy to drum out anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Kerry.

Have a nice day.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

107. Pardon me...

I hadn't realized that those who voted against the IWR had died, or been hounded out of office. They voted "ideologically" and still lived to vote another day.
When all people do as you advise, Hitlers occur.
You are confusing cowardise with morality.

[CTLawGuy]

12. no it wasnt

many dems voted against it and got reelected.

Many Dems voted for it (or would have voted for it) and got defeated.

Some more recognizable ones:

Max Cleland (Sen. - GA)
Jean Carnahan (Sen. - MO)
Jeanne Shaheen (Sen. (Chal.) - NH)

[K-W]

21. Lets try to use some logic here.

Your argument is obviously flawed. You havent proved anything except that the vote wasnt 100% political garuntee. Which no one claimed.

Also, the Iraq war turned out to be more of a disaster than most people thought. Most people thought the administration would find something they could pass off as WMD's, and few thought they would boggle the logistics so badly.

You are using 20/20 hindsight, you need to look at the info they had when they made the vote.

[CTLawGuy]

29. I like logic too

you said "politically voting for it was the only option".

I refuted that by pointing out that many dems voted against it and got reelected and that there were even some who voted for it and still lost.

I showed that "voting for it" was NOT the only political option.

Before the war, if everyone thought it was the only political option, no one would have voted against it. However, some did vote against it. Im sure they wanted to be reelected, and many, many of them were.

Therefore, it couldnt have been the only political option.

[K-W]

30. You didnt show that at all

If the democrats had magic balls your argument would be correct.

But last time I checked none of them could successfully commune with the future.

From the information they had available at the time, voting against the war would have been taking a high risk of political suicide. It would have been stupid.

Now stop using things we only know AFTER THE FACT as if they were part of the equation when the vote happened.

Make an argument that shows that at the time they could have made a different choice with reasonable hope that it would come out good for them.

[CTLawGuy]

42. 2/3 of the dem caucus in the House

voted against it, and unless you can show they didnt care about winning, it must be accepted that they saw it as a viable political option. Most of them won reelection.

They could vote against it and say they were stopping a BS war, or erring on the side of caution, or waiting for more evidence, or a UN resolution. It helps that they are in more liberal districts, but Im sure not all of them were.

Are you suggesting, in your argument, that 2/3 of the dem House caucus didnt want to be reelected? Is dick gephardt that bad of a guy? ;)

[K-W]

47. so what?

Congressmen are all in destinctly different electoral situations. You cant equate one with the other. Some of these people thought they were at less of a risk, or had powerful progressive constiunts that would make them pay for voting yes.

Every congressmen and the dems as a whole had to calculate the best option. You can use hindsight to show that it wasnt the best option. That has nothing to do with anything.

I think what happened was the right thing. The dems all did what they thought was the best option depending on what they knew and what thier situation was. They hedged thier bets and in the end they didnt do too badly, and if things had gone well for Bush, we would still be alive.

[CTLawGuy]

54. When I say they shouldnt have voted for the IWR

I mean MORALLY, not politically. I believe that official have a higher calling than to simply perpetuate their own power. Sometimes you have to take risks to do things that are right.

Remember the Dems had a slim majority in the Senate at the time of the resolution.

[K-W]

60. You havent made a moral case either.

Show me how a no vote would have saved lives?

I can show you how a yes vote could have cost lives. If the war had gone better, a party-line no vote could have been used to discredit the dems. They would have lost a ton of leverage, and been unable to fight other fights that effect peoples lives.

You are being far to morally simplistic. Politicians dont have that luxery.

[CTLawGuy]

63. if enough no votes had been brought together

IWR would have been blocked in the senate.

And even if it couldnt have been blocked, it doesnt justify turning around and voting for it.

You vote for what you BELIEVE is right, regardless of what the outcome would be. that's what a good representative does.

[K-W]

67. So you vote for superficial beliefs, not for actually effecting the system

how is this even remotely a good idea?

If the senate blocked the IWR vote, would it have stopped the war?

You are arguing that in a complex political situation, politicians should just boil it down to a simple black/white moral decision and then vote with that.

that strikes me as an aweful way to govern.

[CTLawGuy]

72. so we are supposed to go along with destructive ideas

becuase they are inevitable? THAT'S an awful way to govern.

That's called COWARDICE, and thats why Dems control exactly ZERO branches of government today.


Of course its a simple moral decision, either you think, under the current circumstances, Bush should have the power to invade Iraq, or he should not. I believe he shouldnt have been given that.

Also, did you hold your current opinion on this matter in 2002? Were you arguing against all the Dems telling their reps to vote against the IWR?

[K-W]

76. no one is advocating destructive ideas

no one is advocating cowerdice.

There is a grey area between fighting to the death and running away screaming. But I guess you dont really want to deal with grey areas.

Your argument would only be right if the IWR vote could have stopped bush. Something that doesnt seem true at all.

IF the IWR vote could have stopped Bush, then yes, the vote would have been clear. But if it wasnt than, the vote wasnt actually about whether or not the war would happen. It was about how it would happen. Would it be the president going it alone, would congress back him fully, or would congress find a middle ground.

Each of the possible ways the war could have been done would have been destinct different political situations depending on the outcome. The democrats had to each weigh the possible consequences of each of the different ways things could play out. Some democrats chose to support that resolution, they thought that was the best way to go about the war, that was going to happen anyway, for the democrats political power and future.

Now please debate that issue. The power to stop the war was NOT in thier hands. So debating whether they should have voted for or against the war is a silly debate, they never got that option.

And yes, I was saying the exact same things at the time of the vote.

[CTLawGuy]

84. the war was a destructive idea

and the dems went along with it. The Dems should have steered the president so that he would only start the war only when it was prudent and necessary.

What YOU are saying is that if attempts to stop something from happening will not succeed, we should enable that thing to happen instead. That's what the Dems did. They did not put sufficient checks on the president's authority.

They said "he's going to war, so lets go along with him and we'll look patriotic too!"

[K-W]

87. The war wasnt the democrats idea.

Once again you make a very fragile claim with no support.

You now claim that the democrats had the power to steer the president so that he wouldnt have gone to war. You are claiming the democrats failed to stop the president when they could have.

You are missing on very very important fact.

THE DEMOCRATS COULDNT STOP HIM

And that single fact changes the debate entirely. The democrats didnt have the option of stopping him. All of thier options involved Bush pushing forward. If you can show me that the democrats had a plan of action that would have had a good chance of stopping the war, and didnt have a more likely heavily negative outcome, and the democrats knew of this plan of action. Fine.

Prove that, and you will be right, if that was the case teh democrats did do the wrong thing out of cowerdice.

But I havent seen anyone make that case, better yet prove it.

[CTLawGuy]

89. They controlled the Senate

In our system of government, a law has to pass both the house and the senate before going to the president to be signed. If the opposing party controls one of the houses, often they will reject a piece of legislation the president proposes.

of course they could have stopped him. but even if they couldnt, they should have tried.


Unfortunately we had "Daschle-thor" (reference to Denethor from Lord of the Rings) in power and he chose to help enable Bush. Also, we had Dick Gephardt standing in the Rose Garden when Bush announced the passage of the resolution.


Another analogy:
If a 250 lb thug is trying to take an old lady's purse, you might think "I can't take that guy in a fight." So is the right course of action to HELP the thug steal the purse, rather than doing everything in your power to help the old lady, even if it doesnt ultimately work?

[wtmusic]

122. superficial beliefs???????????

reality check. What's more superficial, saving your own ass, or doing what's right?

[greatauntoftriplets]

69. And Dick Durbin voted against it.

He will be re-elected in 2006 by an extremely comfortable margin. The Republican Party is virtually moribund in Illinois. Governor is a Democrat, and the legislature is under Democratic control. Only repuke to hold statewide office is Treasurer Judy Barr Topinka, who is a moderate. Hell, they can't even get a repuke to run against Barack Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The "Democrats weren't given much of a choice.."?

Yea or Nay isn't much of a choice? 23 senators voted against it. They seem to have discerned a choice.

One of them was one of my senators, Patty Murray, who is facing reelection this year. Perhaps she valued ethics and integrity a bit more than "politically voting".

[K-W]

41. Fine, you can live in a one party system.

Where the democrats never win elections because they are unwilling to work the system. The democrats are handicapped enough right now without you taking shots at thier knees.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Apparantly, they don't need them.

Their knees, I mean. Standing up seems to be beyond some their capabilities anyway.

[K-W]

62. Fine, demonize the democrats.

Make this an issue of machismo and cripple the party on the left for stumbling and making mistakes. Make it so there is no way on earth for dems to be both moderate and liberal, so the DLC continues to dominate the democratic party because they simply cant count on the fickle progressive vote.

Youve decided the dems are useless and you plan to mak that decision the truth.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Politically fickle left?

Instead you want to chase the politcally "stable" moderates who vote on what color underwear the candidate wears?

"Youve decided the dems are useless and you plan to mak that decision the truth."

I'll be voting Democrat, with pleasure, this fall. For both my senator and congressman..who were politically inept enough to vote against the war.

[K-W]

83. You missed my point.

The only way to get a progressive voice in government is to get a progressive voice in a party that has significant power in government. To grab power in the democratic party, which is very much a possibility for us, we need to prove that progressive ideas can get people elected.

Right now dems are scared to try progressive ideas for two reasons. 1. Republican media domination. The republicans have the democrats reeling and so far in this era, beinc painted as a liberal has lost important democrats important elections.

2. Progressives have become very dissillusioned with the system. With the success of Nader and the green party. It has become clear that there is a sizeable angry left. Unfortunately, the anger isnt reserved only for republicans. Progressives are rightly angry at the entire deal including the reaction of the dems. SO democrats are worried that if they run on progressive issues, they still wont be able to make the progressive vote happy.

So, lets just for a moment forget about the past. Democrats have made mistakes in the past. The DLC movement while short-term successful appears to be a long term mistake, but regardless, it happened.

So now we have to convince democrats that progressive values will get them elected. We can do this by electing progressive dems, fighting the republican noise machine, and organizing the progressive vote for the democrats.

If we successfully do these things, the pendulum will swing back to us. But if we let the past continue to haunt us we will be unable to do these things.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. Nice try.

"So now we have to convince democrats that progressive values will get them elected. We can do this by electing progressive dems, fighting the republican noise machine, and organizing the progressive vote for the democrats."

Terrific! I vote for progressive Democrats. They know that they can get my vote by being progressive. They go after my vote. They also know, if they don't vote progressively (in general - despite claims to the contrary - I'm not a "purist"), they won't get my vote.

Moderate Democrats who want my vote have to move left to get it. That's how the party will change. The party will move left. Conversely, Liberal Democrats who want moderate votes have to move right. That's how the party changes. If the "liberal" Democrats can count on our votes, they will move to the right to try for moderate votes. The party then moves right.

We will "convince" the Democrats that "progressive values" will get them elected, only if we are willing to withhold our votes to protect those values. Otherwise, they will be "convinced" that moderate (DLC) values will get them elected.

The "pendulum will swing back to us" only if we push it.

[Carolina]

34. "The democrats weren't given much of a choice..."

what crap. Twenty-three (nearly half) in the Senate voted NO. The Democrats who voted for IWR wimped out. There was no debate. Robert Byrd challenged all his colleagues to debate, but they were mute. They went along to get this "Iraq business" off the table before the mid-term elections so they could focus on domestic issues. Well, lotta good that political calculation and cowardice did. Haste makes waste not to mention bad policy. The Democrats had a choice to fight for their constituents who were calling and blast faxing them to say no to war and to stand up against Bush. If rubber stamping the administration was "really the only option," then why have an opposition party, hell, why bother with any further elections. Dissent was and remains PATRIOTIC.

They had a choice. They gambled and lost. And yes, Bush surely would have gone to war anyway and folks would have rallied behind him TEMPORARILY. But then the responsibility for current mess would fall solely and completely on him, the GOP and their media enablers/cheerleaders.

[K-W]

45. Give me a break.

How can you call my opinion crap? You present an alternate theory. That if the democrats had voted no, Bush would have gone to war anyway and there would have been only positive repercussion for dems.

That theory is only slightly reasonable knowing what we know now. But the dems didnt know what we know now. They couldnt possibly have known that there would be nothing at all that could be spun as WMD. They couldnt possibly have known about the mistakes they made in the invasion.

Even now, after things have gone so badly for Bush, close to half the country still thinks the war was a good idea. A significant amount still think saddam was a threat.

Even with things the way they are a No vote on that resolution could be very politically damaging to many congressmen.

Now consider the fact that when they made that vote, they could not have known that things would go this way. Bush could have found WMD's. Bush could have executed well. We could be coming into the 2004 election with a very popular Iraq war that most of the country thought made us safer.

Under that possibility, which wasnt terribly improbable, a no vote on that resolution would have been political suicide in all but the most secure districts. The dems would look aweful, and the dem presidential candidate would be in massive trouble.

I am happy the democrats didnt risk my country for one pointless vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. But, 23 voted "no" anyway.

As politicians, were they not aware of the risks? Or, is resistance to illegality and immorality to be made only when it is "politically safe" to do so?

William Fullbright and Wayne Morse both risked, and lost their seats, for opposing the war in Vietnam.

Were they wrong to do so?

[K-W]

57. You are the one trying to find wrongs here.

I am willing to accept that congressmen are all individual people in individual situations. They must make judgements in every individual situation.

I dont see a problem with the people who took bigger risks. I dont see a problem with the people who were in safer situations. I also dont see a problem with people who played it safe.

It works when that happens, the diversity is good. It allows each person to adapt to thier personal situations and then depending on the outcome, there would be some dems in good positions nationally.

I am not arguing that everyone should have voted no. Simply that the people who did vote no had good reason to do so, and are being entirely unfarily judged here

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Kerry would be in a helluva lot better postion if he had voted no.

Kerry, if anyone, was in a "safe" state. I rather doubt that Kennedy will be defeated when he runs again.

Also, with his "yes" vote, Kerry has removed Iraq from the debate. The one issue that Bush is most vulnerable in. Note that Bush is already using the vote against Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the IWR. "Congress approved..." "Senator Kerry voted for..."

But, that isn't even the point. Kerry and the others voted for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation in the name of political expediency. That cost, and is continuing to cost, lives.

The "good reason" that you proclaim is much the same as the Tonkin Resolution vote, when "smart" Democrats lined up to back LBJ.

Was that the right thing to do?

[K-W]

73. Kerry would not be in a better position at all.

Kerry left himself room to critisize. Only the extreme left and extreme right buy the argument that voting yes was a complete and total endorsement of all the actions of the bush administration.

Meanwhile you are using hindsight AGAIN. Kerry could not have known the war would go so badly. If the war had gone better, Kerry couldnt have even tried to run for president.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. The "only a little bit pregnant" argument?

He only partially endorsed the war? What part was that? The bombing part? The invasion part?

"Kerry could not have known the war would go so badly"

He bet on it going well. Bush, sure as hell, didn't know that it was going to be a flop either and he bet the same way. Now, the issue is removed because Kerry can't have it both ways.

As for "Kerry left himself room to criticize." When does that begin? How can he possibly criticise what he endorsed?

[K-W]

86. He didtn bet on it going well.

He didnt stand up and say.

"I John Kerry think this war is a great idea and that Bush is the best leader we could have."

You mischarecterize him as doing so, but he never actually did. Thus he can say I supported war as an option if done responsibly for the right reasons, this war was done by irresponsibly for the wrong reasons, he can relate to the American people who also gave Bush support and the benefit of the doubt. It is a good political position, but once again, the republican noise machine starts up. They mischarecterize his vote as an endorsement of everything Bush did. And at the same time so are many liberals.

Im sure that the democrats could have done better in the situation. I dont like that vote one bit. But im willing to accept that at the time it was a reasonable decision by democrats, and I am not going to hold it against them.

[Kanary]

85. That political expediency may very well cost us the election

You're so right, bandera, the Dems are in a bad corner of their own painting now.

Those "extreme independents" they're courting want to vote for the candidate with integrity and honesty who can, without spin and prevarication, say they are against the war. *THAT'S* the issue.

People DO NOT like spin, and recognize it from far off.

We would have been in a strong position with a candidate who was clearly against the war, and doesn't have to spin it.

People are dizzy from all the spinning, and just tune it out.

Kanary

[Carolina]

59. give me a break with that

bullshit about "knowing what we know now." Many people knew it was wrong/lies back at the time, when it mattered. Geez, we decimated their army in 1991, had them under sanctions for 12 years, had officials saying they were neutralized in 2001 and then drumming up crap though the office of special projects at the Pentagon in 2002 SPECIFICALLY for the mid-term elections and their PNAC wet dreeam. The fucking info was there. And if Rummy and Cheney knew, as they so adamantly stated ad nauseum, exactly where and what quantity of WMDs Saddam had, why didn't they quietly dispatch the inspectors to those sites?! Nooooo, they cut off inspections and went straight to war because they knew it was bullshit and didn't want their ruse disclosed and their little war disrupted. This horror was wrong and it was predictable, and the Dems who voted for it were lazy (as in didn't do their own research) politically calculating cowards.

Spare me the continued defense of the defenseless and let's agree to disagree

[K-W]

65. I wont agree with bad points

You just made a good argument that the right thing to do was not to go to war. Fine, but that was never an issue the democrats got to vote on.

If voting no would have stopped the war, you would be absolutely right.

The problem is that voting no wouldnt have stopped the war. Clearly if the dems were in power we wouldnt have gone to war. This is not a point of contention, but it is the only point you are arguing.

The argument is, if the democrats knew that Bush was going to war no matter what. Should they have legislatively compromised, or staunchly opposed it no matter what.

This is not an issue of whether the war is right or not. It is an issue of the political strategy of a minority party.

[PassingFair]

108. Excuse me...

but did you read ANYTHING during this time period. Did you watch ANYTHING on TV besides FAUX?
Did you fail to notice the MILLIONS of humans around the world who said NO to the war?

"They couldn't possibly have known about the mistakes they made in the invasion" Puleeze!

Did YOU believe it would be a "cakewalk".
Did YOU believe we would be greeted by "flower-throwing Iraqis"?

You deserve the DLC democrats AND *co, who have made murderers of Americans.

[mike_c]

44. so you condemn the democrats who had the courage...

...to vote "no?" Or at least chide them for a politically unwise decision?

Personally, I disagree with your basic premise-- as far as I'm aware, no one who voted against the IWR has suffered any political fallout from their decision to do the right thing rather than the politically expedient but morally bankrupt thing. Saying otherwise simply perpetuates a myth.

[Kanary]

58. Yes, that condemnation is what is being said

The RW is winning: they have successfully split the Dems.

Pretty sight to see, isn't it? :thumbsdown:

Kanary

[mellowinman]

98. The RW has successfully split YOU from the dems.

I am WITH the Dems. I am voting for Kerry, and backing all Democratic candidates this year. If they get in a position of power, with a majority in Congress, I will use my powers, and the forums I frequent to try and steer them in the right direction.

That is politics.

This is politics.

The RW is more split than the Dems.

They are frayed, and coming apart at the seams.

You can sit around and wring your hands at the "death" of the Democratic party, or you can help facilitate the crumbling of the stale RNC.

Guess which one I have chosen?

[Kanary]

99. I don't have to "guess"...... You've chosen to be a splitter......

Do you have pictures of me "wringing my hands"? Do you KNOW what I'm doing or not doing?

Didn't think so.

ASS+You+Me

[mellowinman]

101. Wow, the depth of your arguments

is amazing. You were verbally "wringing your hands" over the supposed split of the Democratic party.

Try and deny it.

Go ahead.

It doesn't matter. Your post is there for all to read.

Is "ASS+You+Me" supposed to be what passes for rational debate around here?

I imagine this is your way of healing the split within the party, right?

Its quite easy to be united.

1. Vote for Kerry and get rid of Bush
2. Debate the platform until we have a winner

How hard is that?

[sandnsea]

5. June 13, 2002

"US has doubled troops in Kuwait this year"

http://216.26.163.62/2002/ss_military_06_13.html

And if you read Woodward's book, which you probably have, you'll know sneaking troops into Kuwait was part of their invasion plan.

Yes, Bush would have gone no matter what.

[CTLawGuy]

10. arent you also in the

"I had no idea Bush would actually invade; Kerry was right to trust that Bush would get a UN resolution" crowd?

[sandnsea]

22. Woodward's book was when???

We knew Bush was planning the war since November 2001 back in 2002???

No, we didn't. We know alot of things now that we didn't know then. Troops in Kuwait, at that time, was a sign that we were serious about getting inspectors into Iraq. Now we know it was part of the military strategy that was on Bush's desk since Nov 2001. Very few people knew that in 2001, less than 10 for sure, maybe less than 5.

[AP]

7. I believe that not only would he have found another way to do it, he would

have made anyone who opposed him pay for that oppostion politically.

It could have sent the whole Democratic party into the political wilderness (in the red states at least) for 40 years.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. BINGO

[K-W]

25. Bingo, and if the war had gone even a little better, wed have 1 party left

They would have buried the democrats and wed have a republican domination coming into the 2004 election.

[CTLawGuy]

70. answer me this, genius

if we have to be like Bush to win, what is the point of winning? We'd get the same thing as Bush.

[TeacherCreature]

117. well why not just suspend democrats and save on their pay?

What do we need them for if they are just there to enable Bush?

[mike_c]

48. you need to revisit the IWR vote tally....

MANY dems did have the courage to vote "no," and none have suffered the consequences you predict. It's simply not true that voting against the IWR would send "the whole Democratic party into the political wilderness (in the red states at least) for 40 years." Many did vote against the IWR, and that punishment simply has not happened. There is no justification in real events for the kind of rationalization you propose.

At best the democratics who supported the IWR capitulated shamelessly (Kerry and Edwards fall into this class, IMO) and at worst they were complicit (Lieberman and Feinstein, for example).

[AP]

50. They were freed up by yes votes in less liberal districts.

If their votes had made a difference, they probably would have voted yes to in order to protect the party.

And even in a liberal district like McKinney's, she was made to pay the price for her opposition to Bush.

And don't think Clelland wasn't an indication of what Republicans are capabale of achieving.

[mike_c]

56. sorry, it still never happened....

You can rationalize it any way you want, but voting against the IWR did not carry the dire political consequences you claimed. It just didn't happen. Instead, dems who voted for the IWR were left to explain the far more politically difficult charge of having carried water for the neo-cons.

[AP]

64. It's a prediction&analysis and not a rationalization. & Kerry & Edwards...

are doing pretty well with despite Yes votes, wouldn't you say, and all the candidates who criticized them for those votes lost in the primaries...by wide margins.

Not many people are asking them to explain their votes, and those who are, I wonder if they care that they're helping Republicans drive a wedge in the left.

If Kerry and Edwards voted no, it's very possible that that's all we'd be talking about today (in terms of being girly-men afraid to protect America) and Bush would be in the lead in the polls today.

[mike_c]

77. more dire predictions based on rantionalizations of events...

...that haven't happened. Arguments such as yours (re Kerry and Edwards) are based upon fantasies-- "if this then that is inevitable"-- but there is no basis in real events to justify such outcomes. It simply didn't happen.

Here's my equally fantastic prediction: if Kerry and Edwards had opposed the IWR then the antiwar left would have a much easier time embracing their candidacy.

[AP]

91. Yes. Let's no one contemplate the future and draw out arguments of

what might happen based on what has happened.

I don't see the anti-war left having any problem picking Kerry-Edwards over Bush-Cheney no matter how hard right wingers wish this would be a wedge issue.

[TeacherCreature]

115. NO WAY

Bush is not that powerful and I can't believe you just made the cowering in the corner argument for democrats.

That is pathetic thinking AP

[Q]

118. So...Bush* has the superhuman power to 'send Dems into the wilderness'...

...for forty years? Isn't that what you're suggesting?

- What you're saying is that Bush* would have EXTORTED Democrats and made them pay for opposing his war? How would he do that? Say mean things about them? Bush* has the power to do none of this unless the Dems back down and allow themselves to be extorted.

[LittleApple81]

8. It is a moot question with a Republican congress. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

9. maybe

but it would have been illegal under the US Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war. the IWR gives Bush political and legal cover here in the US, and it gave him a sense that the country approved of what he was doing, that the approval was bipartisan. It gave a TON of legitimacy to Bush's action.

[Career Prole]

15. Of course he would have, and the repukes were saying as much.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/26/lt.07.html

"Bush's Legal Aides Say Congressional Approval Not Necessary
Aired August 26, 2002 - 11:32 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush is getting advice from his White House legal team about Iraq, should he decide to attack.
CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux joins us with more on all that -- Suzanne, what is the word?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, the word, Leon is really that the president is keeping all of his options when it comes to Iraq, but his advisers are saying he may not need Congressional approval in order to have a military strike against Saddam Hussein. This is something they have been looking at for the last couple of months. They have been looking at historical examples, legal precedents, a number of issues, and they make a possible case. They are saying this, that first of all, the Constitution grants the president duties and powers as commander in chief of the armed forces. Secondly, they point to the 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution which authorizes the use of military force against Iraq. That is the same resolution that Bush senior, gave him the authority in the Gulf War, and third, they point to the September 14 resolution overwhelmingly approved by Congress. That also endorsing military action against terrorists for the September 11 attacks. Now, while President Bush has not said that he is going to need congressional approval or seek congressional approval, he has said that he is going to consult with members of Congress before any type of action, that he has not decided whether or not that is going to be military action."

He had asked his lawyers if he could in advance...those boys considered the IWR vote a courtesy and nothing more.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bush+iraq+%22congressional+approval%22+%22not+necessary%22+OR+unnecessary%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Devils Advocate NZ]

24. A far more important question - does voting for the IWR...

make a person an accessory to a war crime?

Remember, leaders of nations are considered to be war criminals if they do anything to encourage a war crime, even if it is only in speeches.

Does voting yes to IWR make Kerry legally culpable in Bush's war crimes? Is that why the Dems are now quiet in regards to that crime?

[mike_c]

66. yes it does....

And I hope to see every one of the war criminals brought to account for their crimes.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Yes. And, the IWR vote has cost lives.

The IWR vote did cost lives. It essentially gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq. The argument that he was "going to anyway" doesn't hold water. By giving him the cover of congressional consent, it has effectively removed the invasion from the debate. Kerry and Edwards are now in the position of having to renounce their votes in support of the invasion and occupation thus admitting their complicity, or do exactly what they are doing. That is, still supporting the occupation and bloodshed, and offering excuses instead of policy. Kerry has called for more troops in Iraq to "stabalize" the country. He has now picked up the banner of "pre-emption". He is calling for more power to the "intelligence community" - the very same one that instigated the invasion.

The IWR vote did cost lives and is continuing to do so.

His allegation that it's all Bush's doing smacks of Pontius Pilate's hand washing.

[K-W]

28. You contradict yourself

If Bush was going in anyway, then the vote didnt cost any lives.

You have to pick. Unless you think another dem strategy that included no votes could have stopped it.

[CTLawGuy]

36. Lets say a friend and I

go into an alleyway, and we see a drunken man in a nice tuxedo relieving himself behind a dumpster. Being less than moral people, we decide to rob him. my friend sneaks up behind him and stabs him in the back with a knife. then he stabs him again. I go up next to my friend and start stabbing the man in the back as well, until the man falls dead.

If we accept as true that my friend's knife wounds were sufficient to kill the man, does that absolve me of responsibility for his murder, even though I helped stab him?

Not under the law. I would have been an accomplice, becuase my actions facilitated his death, even though he would have died if I had done nothing. I did nothing to try and stop my friend. I didn't call the police, or defend the man.


In the same way, If Bush was going to invade Iraq anway, it doesnt absolve Congress of responsibility for enabling him.

[K-W]

51. Bad analogy

Try this one.

A coworker of yours is going to murder someone on the street. You are in between them. You know him, you know he is crazy, you know he is going to shoot until he kills the man behind you.

He says "Step out of the way."
You can either stay, and die for your convictions, or you can step aside and let him fire. Either way the man behind you dies. One way you die too.

Stop trying to turn this into a morally simplistic situation, the dems had any number of strategic options. Not just yes or no. They chose the one they thought would leave them in the best position to fight another day. They salvaged what they could from a losing situation.

[CTLawGuy]

61. heh

so Im supposed to step aside to save my own skin? What a coward I would be. I'm supposed to do my best to stop the gunman, even if it is trying to talk him down, or calling the police on my cell phone, or shouting for help. It may not work, but thats what I should do.

What Kerry would have done in this situation is said to his coworker; "here take these armor piercing bullets, but don't shoot the guy behind me. think about it first, but if you decide not to do any thinking and shoot anyway, I won't care, at least until the cops come..."

I hope you are not standing between me and a crazy gunman someday, or ill kiss my ass goodbye. :eyes:

[K-W]

71. Martyrdom is not a good political strategy.

First off, kerry didnt hand anyone bullets. You are now proposing that the IWR vote increased the death toll. Please prove that argument before making it an assumption in your arguments.

What if there was no one around to hear the call for help?

You are trying to get out of that analogy by changing the conditions. You dont want to confront a situation where the right ting to do is to step back. You want a world where there is always a way to save a life. Unfortunately there isnt.

[CTLawGuy]

75. YES HE DID!

where have you been?

Do you think the IWR was a resolution to authorize a bake sale!?

It gave Bush the politcal and legal (at least under US law) power to invade Iraq. It essentially gave him the bullets for his gun, the means to do what he did.


I never said the bullets increased the death toll. The death toll, in the analogy, is still one person.

If there was no one around to hear the cries for help, oh well. at least you tried. At least you didnt turn around and help your coworker murder the man!

[PassingFair]

110. Your analogy shows your selfishness, k-w

Try replacing "someone on the street" with YOUR daughter. Would you still step out of the way?

Probably.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The "Good German" defense?

"Why resist? Hitler was going to murder the Jews no matter what we did."

[CTLawGuy]

43. BINGO!

excellent analogy

[Carolina]

46. if Bush was going anyway

then he didn't need their votes. Duh! But their votes aided and abetted, gave Bush cover, even legitimacy. Their votes HAVE cost many lives and continue to do so daily. By authorizing a war hungry ideologue to do as he wished, knowing he was going to war regardless makes them just as culpable.

A Dem strategy would have been to debate, hold off any authoriztion until the inspections had been exhausted and failed, to expose the inconvenient parts of intelligence that didn't support the administration. This hindsight bullshit by some now that had we known ... is garbage. There was info then, if they'd done their friggin homework.

We lost in 2002 anyway! Repukes control all branches of the gov't and the media as it is. Dammit, if you're going down, go down fighting for what's right. Repuke hubris and greed would (as history always shows) have brought them down ANYWAY. And we would not only have survived to fight another day but also been VINDICATED big time. As it is we now have to skirt our complicity and are dependent on 'disgruntled' repukes like paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, etc. We look like Wimpocrats who don't know what we believe or what we stand for!

[mike_c]

80. the invasion and occupation cost lives-- the IWR simply made...

...congress complicit.

[Cleita]

27. Yep, like true Nazis they are working within the law when they can

and if it doesn't work out, then they change, ignore or covertly go around the law. Business as usual and nothing to stop them is their mantra, but pretending to follow the law gives them more legitimacy, which is why we haven't been able to impeach or otherwise remove them from office up until now.

[killbotfactory]

81. He was threatening to

But the troops didn't get piled up until early the next year. I remember thinking "this is fucking crazy, the inspectors haven't found shit! Powell's testimony was shot full of holes and barely worth the paper it was written on. Why is Bush not going to go back for a final vote in the UN? Why are our troops piling up? What the hell is going on? BushCo is saying it will be a cakewalk and haven't presented any goddamn plan about what we'll do after we invade! Why aren't our politicians speaking out about this? Am I stupid or is this FUCKING CRAZY!?!?"

Turns out I wasn't stupid. :(

[maggrwaggr]

82. of course he would have. But that misses a major point

which is that all Americans should have fought tooth and nail to stop him.

Instead, all our politicians like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, et al, decided to play both sides of the fence and cover their ass.

"Should the killer attack dog be allowed off its leash in case there's a mad murderous burglar that needs his leg chewed off?"

Most people will say "yes".

But the big question should be "PROVE that he's a mad murderous burglar before we kill him and all his relatives"

[Jose Diablo]

90. Politically, the Congress had no alternative but to vote for IWR

Recalling how it was all presented, with Saddam and his ability to hit the USA with terrorist attacks, with 9-11 still just a little over a year in the past, with the constant beat of the media war drums, with Afghanistan more or less a done deal any politician voting against the IWR would have faced pressure from their constituents. The politicians were facing elections in less than a month.

No, I do not blame Congress for their vote on the IWR, I blame the media and Bu$h for the lies that blinded most of the Americans into accepting Bu$h's plan to invade Iraq. It really wasn't worded 'invading', it was a preemptive attack to forestall another 9-11 and 'freeing' Iraq from a dictator.

Bu$h and his lier's own the responsibility this war, not Congress.

[Kahuna]

92. Absolutely! He only used the vote as a 2002 election wedge issue.

The man is a weasel. Period.

[Amarant]

93. No

Because the war powers act would have screwed him over in 90 days. The iraq resolution nullified the war powers act, and was one of the key reasons they needed it.

[sangh0]

123. Absolutely wrong

IWR is based on the War Powers Act. IWR *STRENGTHENS* the War Powers Act by citing the WPA as giving Congress the authority to have such a vote and to require the CINC to abide by it and the (reporting) requirements that IWR (and the WPA) specified

[kiahzero]

95. Absolutely

The Bush Administration wanted to use the authorization from Gulf War I to invade, arguing that hostilities had never truly stopped.

Not only that, but unless there was a change to the War Powers Act that I missed, he doesn't NEED ANY AUTHORIZATION until at least 30 days after an action is taken. If I recall correctly, we were already almost in Baghdad by that point.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

96. Yes. The plan was already in full swing.

[Solly Mack]

100. Yes but the IWR vote helped to legitimize the unprovoked invasion

the country was seen as supporting the invasion with the IWR vote on record - regardless of how they might have actually felt about it. That vote matters. It is the record of consent and agreement, forever preserved in history. It promoted the lie that Bush had America's support. That Bush was a legitimate president.

once the IWR was cast, the whole of the government was forever in the position of defending an unprovoked invasion.

I fully remember how political the climate was at the time of the vote. How people who disagreed with an unprovoked invasion were labeled as "unpatriotic." Yes, I understand how damaging it would have been to not support the unprovoked invasion for an aspiring presidential candidate. Yet I still believe the vote of courage was a vote of nay. That a vote of nay was a vote for the truth. That a vote of nay was in the actual best interest of America and her people.

I'm voting for Kerry come November. I just don't anyone to ask me to believe now what I didn't believe then. And what a quick search on DU archives would prove what a great many on DU didn't believe then...that the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was anything but wrong. The IWR disappointed and sickened a lot of people on DU. The archives proves that.


A president has the power to send troops into "hostilities" under (3)".national emergency created by....an attack on the United States...." without the immediate consent of the Congress...though they must "consult" with Congress.

Every president since the the war powers act came to be has bumped heads with the war powers act and they have run roughshod over it.
Congress and the office of the President are at odds over this issue as the Constitution plainly gave the power to declare war to Congress but since Presidents have had their own way in this matter.. we just don't declare war anymore..we declare a resolution. And this has been the case for years now. Congress abdicated it's role and now wants it back...but can only manage a "resolution" of weak checks and balances. A determined President will have their way and Congress is left without a whole lot of choices...BUT...that's in huge part the fault of Congress.



The IWR was political on so many levels. To deny that is to deny history. It was part continuing the battle over the war powers act and the powers the Constitution gave congress...it was part not legitimizing an illegitimate president...it was part a vote that would help or hurt any future presidential candidates....it was part a vote of belief...and part of a vote of party unity.

I type all this so people will FULLY understand that *I* fully understand the politics behind the vote on the IWR....but I still believe the honest vote...the vote of integrity...the vote of courage...was a vote of Nay. This isn't ideological purity. Which is only a term meant to marginalize those who don't agree with the majority.

Like I said, I'm voting for Kerry...but don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I do not buy that anyone in Congress was fooled by Bush or that somehow it's all the fault of the CIA. Yes, Bush lied..but Bush lying doesn't give me a free pass to make excuses for my own actions. Much like Clinton's blow job didn't cause oral sex to be fashionable among teens (a charge the reichwing made)...Bush' lying isn't the bottom-line, catch-all excuse for others. We all have to answer for our own actions.

[remfan]

102. From DU1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=779&forum=DCForumID61&archive=yes

Lawyers Tell Bush He Does Not Need Congress to Attack Iraq

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - White House lawyers have told President Bush he would not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq, although advisers say political considerations could prompt the president to seek a nod from lawmakers anyway.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress.
---------------------

Would they have attacked without congressional approval? I don't know - my gut instinct says this was a political ploy to force congress to react, but my gut also says they are capable of anything.

As to troops, my memory is a bit hazy, but I seem to recall them quietly pouring troops into Kuwait during the summer.

[stilleon]

103. Keys to the car

The IWR vote has been used by the Right to impeach a lot of good people. You didn't vote for it you were against defending America. Kerry votes for it they portray it that Kerry flip-flops. They play a good disinfo game, don't they.

The IWR was like giving the keys to your car to a friend. You expect him to be responsible with your car. If he runs over an old lady you can't be blamed that you were for him doing it. Bush was given the responsibility to use the power of America's forces responsibly, and he has proven he did not. Kerry need to put it like that. Let America know that Bush is not a responsible or moral leader.

Oh wait, I forgot. "America safer. Gays will ruin marriage." That's all I see on TV about these issues.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

[Jacobin]

104. No. Congress holds the purse strings

It's what helped end Vietnam when congress critters finally found their brains and cut funding to a "wind down" mode.

Congress is complicit in this and no one can re-write history to pretend that this constitutionally co-equal branch of government can pawn off their responsibility on the pResident. They helped him do this.

[DemBones DemBones]

106. Kerry and Edwards voted against that funding bill

for the war after they realized they'd been given false information.

Of course I was (and, to some extent, still am) angry that Democrats supported IWR. But I try to put myself in their situations.

Political consequences aside, I do understand that it was harder to vote against this in Congress than to oppose it in our living rooms. If you or I had had to vote on it as members of Senate or House, we'd have had to consider the possible consequences of casting the wrong vote (Saddam attacking and killing Americans) and we'd have been given secret intelligence briefings with info the public didn't have. I don't think we can say for sure that we would have known it was false info, because we simply were not in that situation. I'm sure some of us would have done the same thing a lot of Dems did. Add in the very real factor of concern for political futures and even more of us likely would have.

Besides, those who decide to "punish" Kerry and Edwards for voting for IWR could end up punishing the entire world with another Bush* term.

[Mr_Spock]

109. Of course

HE was obsessed.

[truthspeaker]

111. Hell yes. Even claimed at the time he didn't neet authorization

(as all presidents do).

[Jack Rabbit]

112. We'll never know, but I believe the answer is YES

He would have found some rationale similar to the one he used for going into Iraq without the UN Security Council passing an enabling resolution.

On the one hand, he'd probably be looking worse than he does if Congress had not passed the IWR and it turned out, as is the case, that all of the given reasons for war were false. As it is, the IWR forced Bush to go to the UN and tell his lies there, both in person and by proxy (e.g., General Powell before the Security Council on February 5, 2003). However, the UN doesn't have the power to impeach and remove Mr. Bush as Congress does. On the other hand again, a coalition of Republicans and Vichy Democrats guarantee that Bush will never be impeached over Iraq, or anything else for that matter.

[TeacherCreature]

113. I can smell another rationalization coming on

Latest rationalization:

"Bush was going to do it anyway. The IRW was a way of slowing him down and forcing him to go to the UN."

No, he would not have been able to invade Iraq without he IWR.

[IndianaGreen]

114. If Congress had voted down the IWR, and Bush had gone ahead with war

Congress would have the legal basis for impeaching the SOB.

No amount of rationalizing can excuse the way the opposition party in Congress rolled over for Bush on PATRIOT Act and on IWR.

BTW, why aren't the Democratic leadership in Congress pursuing Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney for lying about WMDs and waging a war of aggression in Iraq?

[sangh0]

124. Like the REPUKE Congress was going to vote to impeach Bush*

Dream on

BTW, why aren't the Democratic leadership in Congress pursuing Articles of Impeachment against Bush and Cheney for lying about WMDs and waging a war of aggression in Iraq?

Because you need more than a majority of Congress to impeach, and Congress is mostly Repukes. Do the math

[IndianaGreen]

126. So why do we even need those whimps in Congress if...

they won't even try? Or is everything determined by polls and focus groups?

I am grateful to Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 for reminding us of the shameful role the Senate Democrats had in failing to join the Congressional Black Caucus in their challenge of the Florida results.

A pissed poor excuse for an opposition party when it joins the ruling Fascist party in coalition to pass the PATRIOT Act and IWR.

[Q]

116. Kind of a weak argument for...

...Kerry. The IWR vote...as Byrd has pointed out on several occasions...amounted to congress abdicating their responsibilities to the Constitution (declaration of war) and giving the executive branch the authority to wage war at Bush's* discretion.

- Democrats knew Bush* was amassing troops...as did many Americans. Bush* couldn't have invaded Iraq without Democratic cooperation and/or silence. Isn't this the REAL bottom line? Tryng to spin Kerry and other Democrats out of their decision to support the 'Bush Doctrine' is nothing more than revisionism at best and dishonesty at worst.

- On edit: Many DUers are saying Dems had no choice but to vote for the resolution or risk being called names. This theory doesn't take into account that the DEM VOTE made it a BIPARTISAN war instead of BUSH'S WAR. This gives Bush* the opportunity of campaigning on this issue and stating truthfully that both parties supported HIS resolution.

- Democrats 'could have' been on the record of trying to VOTE DOWN the resolution...taking the position that it was too abstract and gave the executive branch too much power while effectively taking congress out of the loop. Bush* would have had a very difficult time promoting a war that only REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED.

[Walt Starr]

125. My opinion, no

Without Congressional approval behind him, there is no way he would have attacked Iraq because Congress holds the pursestrings and if they are not on board from the get-go, they can shut it down by not funding the operation.