Let's reconsider the Iraq War Resolution vote.

[BJ]

Now that Saddam Hussein's safely in "coalition" hands let's reconsider what got us, meaning the United States of America, in this mess: the Iraq War Resolution, passed by both houses of Congress a little over a year ago.

Of the nine Democratic presidential candidates five are currently members of that august deliberative body. Of that five only Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich voted against the sweeping legislation authorizing pResident Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein's regime if he (Bush)deemed it necessary.

Of the four who voted to give Dubya Khaddafi these wide-ranging powers three, Representative Dick Gephardt and Senators Joe Lieberman and John Kerry represent parts of the country heavily dependent on the defense industry.

Boeing has a major manufacturing facility within Gephardt's St. Louis, MO based Third Congressional District. In Kerry's Massachusetts Raytheon, maker of the Patriot Missile and involved in developing the ballistic missile defense system, recently opened new global headquarters in Waltham. And Lieberman's Connecticut is home to General Electric and United Technologies, both manufacturers of aircraft and helicopter engines. These two New England states are also the sites of manufacturing facilities for other major defense contractors.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the never-ending war on terrorism signals good times ahead for the nation's largest defense contractors (remember, Dick, the International Association of Machinists members vote and they're just scared shitless that Boeing may go tits up.)

While the Clinton administration more that adequately funded the Pentagon to some it was parsimonious compared with the lavish outlays of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. So while Dubya preaches guns and butter for all it is the Pentagon that's getting its guns and the investing class getting the lion's share of the butter.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhohwer warned in his 1961 farewell address:"...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarreanted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Voting for the Iraq War Resolution was like handing a pyromaniac five gallons of gas and a book of matches then feigning shock, anger and surprize when he runs off and burns the school down. Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman are nothing more than accomplices in the continued domination of American politics for and by the military-industrial complex.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Saddam surrendered. That is proof he was open to negotiation

Further diplomacy and inspections would have resulted in no war at all. It supports the pro-IWR vote. It doesn't support Bush's way of goinf about things.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Your Conspiracy Theories Have No Basis In Reality

In 1996, Introduced Bill To Slash Defense Department Funding By $6.5 Billion.

In 1995, Voted To Freeze Defense Spending For 7 Years, Slashing Over $34 Billion From Defense. Only 27 other Senators voted with Kerry.

Fiscal 1996 Budget Resolution – Defense Freeze. “Harkin, D-Iowa, amendment to freeze defense spending for the next seven years and transfer the $34.8 billion in savings to education and job training.” Kerry Voted Yea

In 1993, Introduced Plan To Cut Numerous Defense Programs, Including:

Cut the number of Navy submarines and their crews

Reduce the number of light infantry units in the Army down to one

Reduce tactical fighter wings in the Air Force

Terminate the Navy’s coastal mine-hunting ship program

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Defense Spending, Including:

In 1993, Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years.

In 1992, Voted To Cut $6 Billion From Defense. Republicans and Democrats successfully blocked the attempt to cut defense spending.

In 1991, Voted To Slash Over $3 Billion From Defense, Shift Money To Social Programs. Only 27 Senators joined Kerry in voting for the defense cut.

In 1991, Voted To Cut Defense Spending By 2%. Only 21 other Senators voted with Kerry, and the defense cut was defeated.

Has Voted Repeatedly To Cut Or Eliminate Funding For B-2 Stealth Bomber

Has Voted Repeatedly Against Missile Defense.

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research071803.htm

<>

[Don Claybrook]

3. Kerry wants to expand the military by 40,000 in his first 100 days

Not a real dovish stance, in my opinion.

See LBN: http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=272798

[Jacobin]

4. Is that a draft I feel?

[WilliamPitt]

6. Actually, it makes sense

Bush's insanity will wind up gutting the armed forces, because no one is going to re-up, as being military now = permanent deployment forever. That new slogan, An Army Of One, may come to be factually accurate.

Pssst...we still have lots of enemies around the world. We need an army. Dovish? Christ, I hope not.

[Don Claybrook]

Don't you suppose

...that those armies and their placement are sometime contributors to why we have so many enemies around the globe?

I would think that reenlistment numbers would go up if we didn't have such a "forward presence" worldwide. Call me an isolationist or whatever, but I think we could get by with a pretty large draw-down.

[WilliamPitt]

9. Then you better bail out on Dean and get with Dennis

because if that's how you feel, yer backin' the rong hoss, pardner. :)

[Don Claybrook]

13. I'll never say anything bad about Dennis Kucinich

I believe him to be the best candidate in the field. My choice is a pragmatic one.

Thanks.

[DrFunkenstein]

10. Calling For Expanded Forces Is Hardly Buddying Up To The M-I Complex

In fact, Kerry and McCain have been central in holding accountable the infamously unaccountable defense budget in recent years, particularly their bi-partisan base closing commission and Kerry's assault on the infamously obsolete, yet huge mohair subsidy.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Um...

Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.

Nelson said claim made during classified briefing

By John McCarthy
FLORIDA TODAY

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryN1216NELSON.htm

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

...more...

'Tis the purview of the activist to say "I would never do this" or "I would never do that." It is the duty of public officials, however, to deal with complexity, nuance and a barrage of data. Here are 75 Senators getting told Iraq could strike America with WMDs. Of course, we know *now* that it was all bullshit. But be a Senator for a moment, and pretend you actually have duties beyond your own righteous indignation and flawless instincts. This + Niger uranium for nuclear bombs just before the vote? This + briefings from the Director of the CIA on same, just before the vote?

Y'all can stand there and say "NEVER!" I wonder how you'd behave if you had to sit in that chamber, and hear this data. I do wonder.

[Don Claybrook]

7. Then why did we scoff at this at the time?

Obviously they're better briefed than we are, but as I recall, we the Great Unwashed at DU were scoffing at this ridiculous notion about Anthrax Death Gliders at the time they floated it.

Shame on the Administration for being such liars.
Shame on anyone in the Senate who bought their lies.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. You write: "they're better briefed than we are"

yet immediately seem to dismiss that fact.

[Don Claybrook]

12. You're right, I am dismissive

And I guess that's because I'm looking at the end result. What sort of magic Power Point presentation were they shown that convinced them that Jane's and other experts were all wet and that Iraq could actually attack the Eastern Seaboard with drones? Did they not suspect that the Bush Administration was lying to them? We all did. Along the same lines as Kerry not expecting Bush to F*** up Iraq as badly as he did, that's pretty much what a great number of people here expected. I just can't believe that the US Senate is less jaded than the General Discussion forum at Democratic Underground. I thought power-politics was the rightful home of jaded thinking.

[WilliamPitt]

11. The drones + uranium from Niger

hadn't yet been debunked (Wilson didn't speak up until March). Lotsa stuff *was* debunked, lots wasn't. DU polls at the time had a lot of people thinking there were probably WMDs over there, and a lot more crossing their fingers. Hindsight, in this matter, is not 20-20, but is kinda self-righteously wrong on the facts.

[Don Claybrook]

14. Well, the drones were debunked in many minds

as soon as the story appeared. I'm not talking about proof-positive, I'm talking about the court of DU public opinion. And I can't recall what your stance was at the time, but it would've been very much in form for you to have scoffed at the ridiculous idea of these anthrax-delivering death gliders.

Just for perspective, I'll state that I think John Kerry would be about a thousand times better of a president than this human rights abuser we have now, but I needn't agree with all of his policy planks.

Thanks.

[DjTj]

15. ...and how about Colin Powell's assurances...

...which are what John Kerry actually bases his stance on.

The very first response to this thread stated that Saddam's easy capture is evidence that negotiation would have been possible.

I don't think the drones could have possibly convinced more than 1 or 2 Democratic Senators, but as always, they don't get to make snap judgments like we do, they have to weigh a whole host of other factors.

All the Republicans needed to do was pick up about 10 Democratic Senators. Some of those Senators were from red states where their constituents were calling in for a yes vote. Some of the Senators believed Powell would use it as leverage for the UN. Some of the Senators believed in the Uranium story. I don't think it's incomprehensible that between those theories you could get 10 Senators and prevent a filibuster.

Now, beyond that, voting is merely a political move and some Senators, like Max Cleland, could not afford to vote Nay. Other Senators in red states would have been committing political suicide if WMD's were subsequently found (and a LOT of people believed that would happen).

Casting a vote in the Senate just isn't as easy as taking a position on DU. I don't think we'll ever find out exactly why each Senator voted one way or the other, but I'm reluctant to hang anyone for it.