How many Democrats voted for "authorization" for war in Iraq because...?

[kentuck]

they thought it would make Israel more secure? And how many thought it would make them look strong on "defense" in an election year? And how many felt like they had no choice but to vote for the "authorization" but now regret their vote? And now they say they were lied to...

Should we, as a Party, simply forget this issue because too many Democrats do not have an excuse for their vote? Just push it aside and don't talk about it anymore because we don't want to divide our own Party on this issue? It's a loser issue for our Party because of the votes of so many Democrats.

[patrice]

1. Those of us who were right about the Invasion of Iraq NEED to hear

just the most minimal mea culpas. And those discussions should contain **ALL** of the factors influencing their CHOICEs. Let's do this the way adults do, honestly and fully recognize WHAT HAPPENED, not just "fault".

[wtmusic]

2. IMO we as a party should stay focused on what the authorization

actually authorized. It is being twisted to serve nefarious ends.

[Noisy Democrat]

3. No kidding

People on the left think they're *helping* by endlessly repeating Republican talking points that distort the IWR. If we united behind the fact that Bush invaded under circumstances *not authorized* by the IWR (the IWR clearly specifies "imminent threat" and says that it is *not* OK to invade just to do "regime change" -- a point which Kerry made during the campaign, for which Republicans ridiculed him while Democrats didn't lift a finger to point out that he was absolutely right), we'd get a lot farther than we're getting by beating the crap out of our own people.

[wtmusic]

4. Well said

We need to call people on the phrase "voted for the war", which is tossed around here as much as it is on FreeRepublic

[mattclearing]

16. Read the IWR. It authorizes force without conditions. n/t

[Noisy Democrat]

40. Kerry pointed out at the time:

"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." John Kerry, Senate floor, October 9, 2002

You're right that the IWR doesn't use the word "imminent," it says:

a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

You could argue that "defending against the continuing threat" can be interpreted very broadly, and of course that's what the Republicans are doing; at the time, both Bush and the various senators who voted for it made it clear that it meant only acting in genuine national defense. The next clause of the IWR requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours of taking action, but preferably before, in order to show that he did determine that force was required to defend the U.S. I don't see how Bush could claim he determined any such thing, other than by fudging the facts. The IWR is no doubt written too broadly to let us haul Bush in on criminal charges, but certainly in the court of public opinion we could take a stand that he never made a legitimate determination that force was necessaary or appropriate for national defense.

[mattclearing]

47. His determination was based upon mushroom cloud scaremongering.

It wasn't based on any actual threat, as all of the threats they cited over the period during which they attempted to drum up support for the war were eventually debunked.

[johnaries]

49. No it does not. Go to my thread, I have posted the IWR

except for the introduction:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5355250

If you do not believe that Bush violated the IWR after reading it, please post why you think he did not.

But it does have very clear conditions. The words "imminent threat" aren't there, but the conditions are clear, nevertheless.

[patrice]

8. Thanks for pointing that out about the IWR! I remember, now,

noticing that phrase "imminent threat" and wondering what they knew that indicated that the threat was "imminent".

We could deal with this on that point. Most were told only that there was more intelligence, not necessarily what that intelligence was exactly, and they were told that this intelligence indicated there was an imminent threat, that is what they voted about.

[mattclearing]

17. They should have voted on the bill in front of them.

The bill which explicitly authorized the president to use the armed forces as he saw fit in Iraq without preconditions.

[patrice]

29. Do you think they didn't think Bush would Invade another country

without a concrete case? Even though he was moving troops and ships and supplies and all kinds of stuff around the globe at the time?

I still did not think that ANYONE would start a war, just because s/he wanted to. I was watching everything and reading William Pitt's book with Scott Ritter. I knew how BAD the case was, but I just didn't think anyone would ever do what Bush did. I could see how that would make a person think there MUST be more to it, or Bush wouldn't otherwise do it, just because he wanted to. He would do it because he had at least a probable case.

[mattclearing]

34. I thought it was clear to anyone paying attention that Bush had

already made up his mind. His entreaties to the United Nations were an attempt to get support for what he already planned to do.

I think the Dem senators who backed the IWR were afraid to vote against it, mainly because each of them had presidential aspirations and didn't want to be seen as weak on national security.

Gore and Dean correctly noted that Iraq was not currently a threat, so it was clearly possible to suspect that Bush was disingenuous in his attempts to justify it.

Woodward's book details how Bush said, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."

I have a hard time believing he thought too hard about this. Indeed, it was on the agenda of the PNAC before September 11th.

[patrice]

44. He said he hadn't decided. He was saying that in Jan-Feb 2002.

George Bush is a liar.

I'm disappointed in him, to say the least. I was going to give him a chance, just like his Dad, who was a better President than Reagan!!! But George Jr. is a Liar; that kind of messes Everything up REAL BAD, with all of the Consequent Suffering, Destruction, and Death. Way to go Pro-Life!!! :sarcasm:

[Noisy Democrat]

42. It said

he had to make a determination that the use of force was necessary in order to defend the United States. I can see that the wording gives Bush a lot of wiggle room -- one *could* read it to mean that Bush can just say that little voices in his head told him that force was necessary and appropriate, and legally he'd be in the clear.

At the time, it was understood (on the basis of Bush's statements and the statements of the senators) to mean that Bush would only use force if he actually determined that it was necessary in order to defend the US against a threat. I.e. that he had to have made an actual determination, not just wildly made stuff up. He's never explained how he came to that determination in any way that can stand up to any scrutiny at all. Even if the IWR is written loosely enough that he can't be brought up on legal charges, we can certainly argue in the court of public opinion -- as Kerry has all along -- that Bush abused the authority granted to him.

[Greyhound]

11. None of those traitors are "my" people. n/t

[The Magistrate]

14. Well Said, Ma'am!

Well said indeed.

Welcome to the forum, by the way....

[mattclearing]

15. The IWR says no such thing.

There are no contingency clauses in the IWR. It grants President Bush authority to use the armed forces as he sees fit in Iraq. Everything else is mere commentary.

[sandnsea]

22. It's a LAW

Are our laws worth the paper they're written on, or not.

Letting him get away with calling that a vote for war, when he was saying he had no plans for war, all the while having secret war meetings per the DSM, just because you hate Democrats, is flat stupid.

[mattclearing]

25. What are you talking about?

Point out the contradiction in the text of the document. The only clauses in the IWR regard reporting on military activity, as I recall.

Everything else is statements of the Senate's "support for the UN efforts." Supporting the efforts and requiring that military action be contingent on them are two different things.

[sandnsea]

33. "mere commentary"

Laws are not mere commentary. The resolution required a determination that "reliance on peaceful and diplomatic means" would not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq". Clearly Bush did not meet the standards of the IWR.

[mattclearing]

35. Does it ask for him to do it in writing?

I just decided that national security reasons require me to wage war against Iraq. See how hard that was?

[sandnsea]

41. yes

How can you make arguments about the resolution when you don't appear to know what's in it?

[mattclearing]

46. It said he would make available his determination to the

Speaker of the House. Did anyone really believe Hastert would hold him to it?

[sandnsea]

51. He LIED

In the Determination. Are you going to hold him accountable for that?

[mattclearing]

52. Of course I hold him accountable for that.

But that doesn't mean I won't hold gullible Dems accountable either.

[sandnsea]

53. It won't work

That's how he's been getting away with it for two years. The second you call that a vote for war, people forget the 6 months that came after. It becomes all about what we knew in Oct 2002, which was much much less than March 2003. It also takes the focus off the Determination and the lies he told when HE actually went to war. The only way to get people to understand what happened is to start holding him responsible for what he said at the time, that was was not imminent or unavoidable. That he was trying to avoid war. That's what the inspections were all about and that's the information he ignored.

[mattclearing]

54. You are right there.

It is important to remember that senators authorized him to use the armed forces. They didn't declare war themselves.

I guess my judgment is clouded by my disappointment in some Democrats for backing what seemed to me an obviously unnecessary war on trumped-up charges.

[sandnsea]

56. That is understandable

But to me, it's more important to expose Bush at this point. There was 6 months between the vote and the invasion. There were inspections and all kinds of information gathered. The vote has nothing to do with Bush lying about the need to go to war in March of 2003.

[mattclearing]

12. It authorized the use of military force in Iraq.

It amazes me how often this comes up, but it's not surprising, considering the way the IWR was sold to the public.

If you read the legislation, it basically says, "We support the efforts to work with the UN, but nonetheless, we grant the President authority to use the armed forces as he sees fit in Iraq."

It authorized force as Bush sees fit in Iraq. It was deliberately worded to do so.

[wtmusic]

31. Not cut and dried

"the President shall...make available to the Speaker of the House...his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

This is extremely vague and poorly worded from a legal standpoint (on those grounds alone, it was reckless to vote for the IWR). However, IMO a solid case could be made that "presenting his determination" would require solid evidence. None was provided.

[mattclearing]

37. True.

I feel that without specific criteria, any contingencies in the resolution were toothless. That's why Bush and company can accurately state that Dems gave them the authority to invade Iraq. Which is sad...I'd love to be able to agree with Dems who say that they supported the UN/WMD search efforts, not the war. The resolution doesn't seem to bear out their reservations.

[wtmusic]

43. What's also interesting

is that somehow giving Bush the authority became "the Dems voted for war". It was Bush's sole decision; why isn't he shouldering the blame?

[mattclearing]

45. That is an excellent re-framing of the debate.

And I think that is yet another way that Dems failed to fight that accusation last year.

[blm]

48. Because the media and many on the left wouldn't let them be heard.

As many times as Kerry said the exact same thing -That Bush rushed to war unnecessarily when weapons inspections and diplomacy were working - the media and the left were beating the "Dems voted for Bush's war" meme so loudly that the many Dems trying to be heard were drowned out by the ferocity of the spin.

[blm]

5. IWR got REAL intel reports from Weapons Inspectors for two months prior

to Bush's invasion.

Keep getting caught up in blaming the IWR and you let Bush off the hook. The ONLY intel that was operable on March 17, 2003 was the two months of REAL TIME, ACCURATE Intel from the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

It was the IWR that put them there. Their reports proved war was NOT necessary.

We should have been pounding this for years instead of playing the media whipping boy and blaming the IWR.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

7. Shouldn't redflags have gone up when Bush requested this "authority"?

Since he was shipping troops into Kuwait as fast as he possibly could? Yes, he lied. He withheld intelligence. He exaggerated intelligence. I have a difficult time reconciling the Democrats' reasons for going along with the vote except for their own political well-being? Sorry... :(

[blm]

9. Go ahead, but that attitude benefits Bush and further prevents substantive

accountability for his violating the IWR and its guidelines.

[kentuck]

13. Stick our heads in the sand ?

and pretend it is not an issue? Let the Repubs have their argument and let our side have our argument? And it's all a wash? The truth is never exposed.

[sandnsea]

20. yes

If that's what it takes for you to hold Bush accountable for his lies, if you just can't comprehend anything you've been told about that resolution for the last 2 years, then for godsake yes, just stick your head in the sand. Or a fucking sock in your mouth. Or something. Whatever the hell it takes to hold Bush accountable for what HE said and did.

He said on Friday that he "made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support." But when the vote actually happened he said, "Members of both political parties have worked together with the -- with members of my staff, to develop a statement that shows our determination and our desire to keep the peace." and "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice."

You can help Bush with his revisionism or you can help tell the truth. Or you can stick a sock in it. Whatever the fuck it takes.

[blm]

23. Because blaming IWR plays into THEIR spin and obscures the FACT that the

ONLY intel operable on March 17, 2003 was the intel being reported in REAL TIME by the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq since Jan 2003 as per the IWR.

You and many others have made it too damn easy for Bush and his media to spin all blame on a resolution - a resolution that would have prevented war if administered by ANY other president.

[mattclearing]

18. The attitude? The IWR explicitly authorized the use of the armed

forces in Iraq without conditions regarding WMD or the UN. That's the truth, not some right-wing spin.

[blm]

21. Bush's determination to make AFTER weapons inspections and diplomatic

efforts were made and Bush DETERMINED that military action was necessary based on threats to our NATIONAL SECURITY.

Show me where Bush made his decision based on threats to our national security, when weapons inspectors and diplomats said otherwise.

[mattclearing]

24. Show me where the IWR required him to do so.

It's simply not in the text. There is mention of the UN's efforts and WMD, and it says that the Senate supports those efforts, but ultimately, we hereby grant President Bush authority to use the armed forces at his discretion. (paraphrasing)

Ignoring that strikes me as cutting some people who made some decidedly cynical votes on the matter some unearned slack.

[blm]

26. It's part of UN res that the IWR refers to. You think inspectors showed up

in Iraq on a lark? It was part of the guidelines Bush needed to meet so he could make an honest determination.

He did NOT make an honest determination, but he gets let off the hook by the too convenient blaming of the IWR as the culprit.

[mattclearing]

28. The resolution was a parting of ways with the UN.

It was basically saying, like the right-wingers said at the time, that the United Nations cannot be the gatekeeper for military action by the United States.

That's why Howard Dean asked why Democrats were voting for a unilateral war in Iraq at the DNC Winter Meeting. Because that's essentially what the document said.

[blm]

32. Did Dean forget that he supported Biden-Lugar which had nearly the same

guidelines as the final version of IWR, but required a letter to Congress day OF invasion instead of the within 48 hr. of invasion required in IWR?

B-L did NOT require Bush go in only with UN or even go back to the UN as has been falsely reported at times.

B-L said that Bush could not go in for regime change, but that was a moot point as regime change had already been part of US policy since 1998 and even Dennis Kucinich voted in support of that at the time.

[Greyhound]

10. The usual suspects, 5 DINO's

Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
What really gets me is these shit-heads will, no doubt, have their defenders here. Blah, blah, blah... :puke:

[ComerPerro]

19. How many of them took Bush at his word when he said

that they were voting for the authorization to use force if inspections fail and if the UN approves?

How many gave him the benifit of the doubt when he told them that going to war was the last measure?

[PATRICK]

27. I remember Kerry

direly warning Bush not to violate the war vote by abandoning the UN approval. More easily dismissed and forgotten. The Bush team had their semblance of blank check and what were the swindled compromisers going to do once troops were engage? Why did they even bother signing on? In the simple hope that weapons inspections would provide an out to direct responsibility, one way or the other?

The various Dems can probably write a biographic volume, "How I Have been Had and Could Still Be." The trap, if one still was mesmerized by American foreign policy directions in general, was real, the practical options of stopping the war seemingly none, the politics a lose-lose situation(if they knew even that?). One had to surrender to the reality of the Bush regime was and was absolutely committed to do and the things that would allow it. I think even those who voted against never had this firm foundation of distrust unmitigated by the need to join together for necessary and old policies- which the Bush team only manipulated for their own ends.

It is the duty of real leaders to get out of such traps or reverse their attitude of cooperation and surrender that stemmed from a long idiotic retreat from a stolen election and the GOP Noise Machine. I mean is the wily charismatic Bush shooting Dem Senators in front of the Capitol steps? Wellstone, with difficulty, had swung away from this big surrender and more than the other anti-war voters was poised on the brink to lead the party away from its collaboration slant, perhaps even more influential than Dean, lead the party leadership in the right direction and trust the American people not the crooks these same Dems OKed in the commission of electoral theft.

[wiggs]

30. I can forgive one vote based on

...misplaced trust in the administration because they thought that either 1) he really did want the appearance of going to war in order to negotiate from a stronger position (Kerry's reason), or 2) because they really believed the administration in terms of threat. And remember that IWR came with conditions the administration had to make.

At that time, we didn't know the depths to which this administration could sink. There was lots of skepticism (despite what Mehlman is saying), but most of us didn't fully grasp the nature of the beast.

However, that IWR vote was followed by a pathetic administration response to the conditions that dems should have flagged. And then we've had two years of dem complicity and passiveness across the board on Iraq, torture, incompetent war management, armor, crappy appointments, government transparency, pursuit of no-bid scandals, pursuit of Plame issue, support of Sibel, Abu Ghraib photos, funding votes, election reform, election certification votes, environment, etc etc. ...from most dems anyway...not all, but most.

So, to me, IWR fits into a pattern of dem behavior that is as mysterious as it is dissapointing. Have they really been not displeased with administration goals to concentrate wealth and power into the hands of fewer countries and people? Are they, deep down, not displeased with American imperialism? Were dems simply letting the administration hang themselves?

I don't know.

[patrice]

36. I don't know either. And - Is ammending oneself possible without

feeling the "Heat"?

I love John Edwards, e.g., isn't it possible for him (and others) to learn and change? Can that happen if we don't press the issues around IWR?

[The Stranger]

38. A lie is a lie is a lie -- no matter how much you try to dress it up.

At that time, we didn't know the depths to which this administration could sink. There was lots of skepticism (despite what Mehlman is saying), but most of us didn't fully grasp the nature of the beast.

Yes, we do know. And we did know. And we said so at the time. They lied and falsified and fabricated false evidence INTENTIONALLY to take the whole nation to war.

The nation was hijacked by a small group of people intent on bypassing the will of the people and the national security interests of the country to take it into a war it did not want and could not win.

[Individualist]

39. We did know

Anyone familiar with PNAC knew the cabal was hell bent on invading Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. They voted to authorize an illegal pre-emptive war. WMD are irrelevant.

Whether they were "lied to" or not. Even if Iraq did have WMD it posed no immediate threat to the United States - any more than other nuclear/wmd armed countries do. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Brazil, Britain, France.

Even Edwards admits that it was a "vote for war".

[KG]

55. all of 'em

they made a craven political decision. and thousands have paid for with their lives.