Here's a real question about the IWR, why didn't dems force Bush to accept a stronger resolution?

[Hippo_Tron]

First of all, I will admit that almost every Senator and Congressman was convinced that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction because Bushco falsified the intelligence. For that I will admit that they were misled and that aspect is no fault of their own. But here is what I want to know.

Why did Democrats cave on the war resolution and let Bush have his version?

Why didn't the pass a much stronger resolution, one that would've given Bush the authority to begin the process of getting the inspectors back in and building a coalition, but then forcing him to come back to the congress when he wanted to invade Iraq.
For those with short memories, democrats controlled the senate at the time and this was fully within their power to do. Even the Biden-Lugar resolution was stronger than Bush's version of the IWR.

For those who don't remember, Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002 which means that Democrats controlled the committees. They could've easily negotiated with the White House to get a much stronger resolution but instead they gave Bush a blank check.

I think it is because they were playing politics and not willing to risk looking weak on national security. If someone wants to challenge that theory they are welcome to.

[soothsayer]

1. they were skeered of the 911 rhetoric being used to hammer them

as weak on security, imho

[AtomicKitten]

2. Can I agree?

OK, I would like to agree. Alrighty then. Abdicating their constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to Junior and Junior alone was the worst. There were holes in Junior's case for war you could drive a Hummer through. It was CYA vote in the worst sense imaginable, the consequences devastating on so many levels. It was a vote I cannot forgive. Sorry. No excuses, no exceptions.

Waiter, check please.

On edit: K&R

[Hippo_Tron]

5. AK, I'm willing to forgive, but not excuse what they did

Senator Kerry in particular has earned my forgiveness because it is clear to me that he regrets his vote and he is now doing everything that he can to make up for it. However, there's a difference between forgiveness and making excuses. People here are trying to excuse those who voted for it on the premise that they were misled about WMD. I agree that they were misled but the resolution wasn't about WMD. It's about the fact that it was so fucking obvious that Bush was trigger happy and would rush into unilateral war as quickly as possible.

Voting NEA on the IWR was not a pacifist vote or a vote that denied the supposed threat of Saddam's regime, which almost everyone at the time believed was very real. Voting NEA on the IWR was a message to the President that he MUST build a coalition and MUST use war as a last resort. Almost every Senate Democrat (save Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman) wanted to see Bush build a coalition and use war as a last resort. Yet only 23 had the guts to cast the vote to force him to do this

[AtomicKitten]

7. It was a travesty that reeked to high heaven.

Junior's entire case for war was easily deconstructed step-by-step, but they didn't have the courage to stand up to the GOP Wrecking Machine. IMO they were the gatekeepers and they failed us. This is where they should have dug in their heels and just said no.

[elocs]

19. The CYA aspect of the vote is interesting

inasmuch as Kennedy voted against it, but Kerry voted for it. Feingold voted against it, but then he votes his conscious without a finger to the wind.

[Cocoa]

3. we can start by looking at the Biden-Lugar amendment

ask why that did not pass.

But some people say that version of the bill was not significantly different than the one that passed.

But Carl Levin also offered an amendment as I recall but can't find now which was more restrictive of the president. That one didn't go far at all.

[CTLawGuy]

11. Biden-Lugar was a better bill

not the best bill, but a better bill. It authorized the president to use only the necessary force to counter the threat from WMD possessed by Saddam. Bush referred to B-L as a resolution that "tied his hands."

IWR on the other hand was so vague as to be a blank check.

[cali]

4. Your assertion that practically every dem

believed the WMD lies, is not true. Just as we here, knew there was evidence conflicting with what bushco pushed, so did many dems in the house and senate.

[pretzel4gore]

6. factor in the 2k 'election'

or all the other crap (the whitewater scandal, monica) the gopigs made routine....
btw how can a little 3rd world country with smaller military budget then the state of californy threaten usa?

[stellanoir]

8. The provision was to authorize

* to use force AFTER he got UN approval. He NEVER got it.

His authorization to use force and further should be repealed for that reason alone, to say nothing of the carnage and suffering his idiocy has wrought.

[CTLawGuy]

12. point out the section of IWR that requires him to get approval of the UN

there is none. It DIDN'T require such approval, merely a presidential determination that diplomacy won't work is enough to trigger the power to go to war.

[bowens43]

9. They couldn't. Bush didn't need authorization to invade Iraq. nt

[CTLawGuy]

10. again

it is all about politics.

We got stuck in the minority because we play political games at the expense of doing what is right.

Bush knew that by forcing the vote right before the election, he could ram it through because the Dems would either
(1) be too afraid to vote against it for fear of looking weak,
(2) vote for it so they can "take the issue off the table" for the election.

I frankly believe that most of the votes for the resolution were for political reasons. It IS Bush's war, but Congress had a responsibility to protect America from doing something this stupid.

[ProSense]

13. That's exactly what they did!

Why didn't the pass a much stronger resolution, one that would've given Bush the authority to begin the process of getting the inspectors back in and building a coalition, but then forcing him to come back to the congress when he wanted to invade Iraq.

They did that. Biden-Lugar was the strongest, and some of it's language was negotiated into the final resolution:

Snip…

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq . None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.


link

Bush agreed, but then lied in violation of that agreement!


Votes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

[blm]

14. Bush was going to violate ANY agreement. Just like he did with UN resolution

too that many of you seem to forget. No one tells the UN that they are complicit with Bush on the war, even though Bush clearly violated their trust just as he violated the IWR.

[AtomicKitten]

17. that doesn't excuse their participation in this folly

You seem very accommodating in trying to mitigate the gravity of the IWR vote. It doesn't matter that Junior may have invaded anyway. It is my expectation that the leaders from my party, leaders that had control of Congress at that time I might add, do the right thing. If we citizens were smart enough to know Junior's case for war was full of holes and that he was asking for some bipartisan cover to invade Iraq, you bet yer arse I expected my leaders who had a front row seat to know. Parsing words to mitigate that responsibility in my opinion speaks volumes about what lengths people will to go to to provide cover for some politicians.

[beachmom]

15. Actually, the answer is Lieberman

Does somebody have a link to how Lieberman was in the Rose Garden and rejected the Biden/Lugar amendment? He killed it, his first of many betrayals.

Lieberman, Lieberman, Lieberman

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Lieberman had no authority whatsoever to do this

He may have given the GOP the 50 votes that they needed but the Democrats still controlled the Senate. That means they could've held it up in committee until Bush complied.

[PassingFair]

18. This bugs me.

"almost every Senator and Congressman was convinced that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction"

The MAJORITY of dems in the HOUSE voted NO on IWR

ONCE AGAIN the MAJORITY OF DEMS IN THE HOUSE VOTED NO ON IWR.



The majority of SITTING senators (now) voted NO on IWR.

MOST DEMS VOTED NO.....!!!!!


The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!

Have we GOT IT!


We have the moral, intellectual and factual highground, LETS USE IT.

Stop being apologists for the cynics who voted for it.

The enablers allowed it at the time, because they figured it was
a win/win for them politically, and they didn't realize that
WE WERE WATCHING.

THESE DAMN NETROOTS!!!!!

[beaconess]

20. Partial reason - Gephardt sold out the Democratic Caucus . . .

Remember - he cut a deal with the White House without the knowledge of the House Dems.

And they were pissed.

This wasn't the only reason the Dems didn't come back stronger, but it was an important factor.

[sandnsea]

22. Gephardt & Lieberman both

I don't know which is more responsible or how it all unfolded exactly, but they do seem to be the sorry culprits.

[beaconess]

23. you're right

[beaconess]

21. The Dems foolishly thought that if they rushed it through and got it off the table,

they'd remove it as an issue in the 2002 midterms.

They thought like nit.