Dems Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions

[AtomicKitten]

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder

Roll Call on vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 4, 2006

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which would have required Bush to come back to Congress before launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He recalled that extended hearings were held before the Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this time about how we got to get answers before this train leaves the station," Spratt said.

more at http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F12%2F03%2FAR2006120301108_pf.html

[ProSense]

1. WaPo Staff Writer: the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war

WaPo: Bush had the authority to go to war! Wrong! It wasn't a vote for war

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

Everybody voted for different reasons, which were mostly about preparation. They expressed the same concerns about WMD and needing to continue inspections---the same concerns as Kerry and Feingold did!

This is Bush's war!

[AtomicKitten]

4. Why don't you take that up with the Washington Post?

[paulk]

2. is this just a result of seniority?

it seems pretty obvious that Pelosi's moves have been aimed at giving anti-war representatives (not necessarily anti IWR, read Murtha) positions of power, but are these committee chairs voted on?

[AtomicKitten]

3. I believe she assigns them.

She skipped over Harmon and Hastings, so seniority holds some water, but clearly not much.

[PVnRT]

8. Mostly, yes

And this is going to piss off the DLC triangulists who still think that the Iraq War is "popular" and "not a complete fucking disaster."

[DemReadingDU]

5. morning kick

[JNelson6563]

6. Finally!

Glad to see these brave souls getting some recognition. :toast:

[exlrrp]

7. DITTO!!! And DITTO AGAIN!!

As someone who has opposed this war from the beginning, I want to see it end as soon as possible.
Pelosi's getting a lot of flak for not gong after impeachment but she's got her priorities right--end the war FIRST!! Put the people who want to end it in charge. THATS what I voted for!

[mzmolly]

10. Exactly. Our kids and the children/people of Iraq are the first priority.

THAT is what I voted for as well.

[The Count]

9. Important good news - thank you! K&R

Also, love the beating a dead horse smiley. Mine wasn't quite as good: