|
To hear Kerry tell it, his vote to authorize the use of force against IRAQ was intended to provide Bush with credibility to strengthen his ability to threaten Saddam (to be taken seriously), and that he was disturbed when Bush just used the power to up and invade without having proper plans (at least for the aftermath). Not that I'd consider anything Lieberman has to say as having much validity, but he found such an explanation "unbelievable" and said Kerry should explain exactly how he felt he had been misled. Of course, Lieberman also "couldn't" understand how someone could vote to authorize force and then fail to vote for appropriations to enable the war. Which, is really rather obvious--a commonly understood mechanism by which Congress "is supposed" to be able reign in a war-minded President--by simply not providing the funding. Alas, when tested, such a notion falls flat on its face, because--at least nowadays, the President has no qualms against making the case that anyone who doesn't vote to provide for the troops (which he's already irrevocably committed) isn't just trying to prevent the war, but is really a "traitor" and doesn't care about our people in uniform.
Kerry's explanation did sound reasonable to me, as awkward and seemingly predictably ineffective as such a strategy would be, but I wasn't there and somehow wasn't copied on any of the memos. However, according to other accounts and analyses I've read, there was a great deal of political pressure (and political threats) levied against Democrats to go along--or they'd face the Republican smear machine and be lucky to get reelected--as no one would vote for anyone who didn't stand up for our national security and/or support our troops (which, even by then, had already set up camp in the middle east--and would probably be invading no matter what). That, and the fact that the Bush Administration had provided Congress with misleading (ie. "fixed", "cherry picked", etc) intelligence reports and information--making the case for war seem stronger than it should have been. The intelligence community generally did think IRAQ had WMDs, though the extent to which they had them was anybody's guess and they should never have been quoted as saying so without also including their disclaimers that they really just didn't know. Truth be told, few Congressmen even read farther than the five page summary of the National Intelligence Report they'd been provided with anyway. Thus, Democrats, by and large, caved into the pressure whether they had any reservations or not and/or believed the intelligence as provided and consequently voted to support the authorization.
If Kerry was right and honest in his interpretation--that Bush really did need a "big stick" with which to threaten Saddam in order to get him to... well, by that point, I suppose the argument was that he should step down--no more tedious demands that he disarm, but rather that he must go... well, I probably would have voted for it. After all, they didn't really yet know just how utterly mendacious, abusive towards tradition, intentionally defiant towards rules and restraint and downright consumed Bush was with crushing Saddam Hussein. They figured they could trust him and that he wouldn't do anything as insane as actually invading--despite the clear preparations for war and the over the top rhetoric... Obviously, I'm assuming that at least many of the Democrats didn't really think he'd break with the whole world, ignore the U.N., Nuremberg precedents and go it alone in such an invasion. If so, little did they know. Appropos quote (said jokingly): "International law? I better call my lawyer" --GWB.
Speculating on what would have happened if they hadn't agreed is almost as hard as predicting the future. Perhaps even if they'd managed party unity, they would've still been beaten. Though, if they had, we'd still have gotten the same authorization--nothing more, since that was what they were voting on. Of course, if they could have managed to delay the vote... well, no, because they'd have needed to delay it by a month or even several months to have made much difference. What was needed was to be able to send the weapons inspectors in for one last set of searches--another couple of months worth. They couldn't have managed anything like that. Any delay, though, might have had more profound effects--because owing to the time of year and subsequent climate effects, the military had set some deadlines--and time was running out. I'm not sure I give that one much credence because all it would have meant was having to do the job in dreadfully high desert temperatures--unpleasant but it doesn't seem likely to stop the show. Alas.
Curiously, at the time, the majority of citizens was against the idea of an unprovoked invasion, not only because it would be a violation of international law and stand as an example of a scary new policy of preemptive war, but because it would be war and involve American casualties. Amazingly, once we went in and following the almost hypnotic, ubiquitous multi-media coverage... and seemingly conflating support for the troops with support for the war itself, public opinion reversed dramatically. If asked, most people wouldn't even remember they'd ever been against the war. Be that as it may, since things haven't gone well and continue to provide a continuous stream of bad news... that public opinion has finally turned against the war (just a bunch of flip-floppers, the public, that is).
Okay, back to the topic at hand. I read other's who, after having discovered how explicit and all-encompassing the IWR is conclude that it's ridiculous to think that anyone who voted for it could possibly claim that "they weren't voting for war". Literally speaking, they're right--it basically says it's okay for Bush to make war and that they agree with his reasons. However, it's probably rather rare for Congressmen to actually agree with everything written in every document they vote for. Even more obviously, it seems that anyone who would say that their claim is ridiculous doesn't have much of a grasp of human psychology or the virtually constant act of rationalizing one's actions/thoughts/behaviors. Everyone does it, practically all the time. In order to relieve the pressure and get through the situation, many Congressmen signed something they probably didn't agree with--and rationalized that "Well, Bush won't really be so rash as to actually use it..., but now the world will take him seriously". Then again, perhaps they were indeed caught up in the fervor, went along and later came up with that rationalization. However, knowing the general ideologies of the Democrats involved, the latter seems less likely. Plainly they agreed to something that was absurdly deferential to the President and in doing so forsook their duty as members of Congress to oversee the President (and giving up the responsibility of declaring war, a-priori was certainly abdicating their role in the process--though it certainly streamlined the process of starting a war).
You can relate whatever points you agree or disagree with up to this point as you want (I'm open to suggestions, corrections and improvements), but it's really the following latter portion of your argument I don't understand. You say they "had to" vote for the IWR because the alternative was a resolution that was even more favorable to Bush. The thing is, somehow I missed that proposition as well as any discussion of how the fear of it supplied the pressure required to get Democrats to approve the lesser resolution. I haven't read or yet heard mentioned anything about such an alternative resolution involving a superset of the IWR. If true, perhaps it should be called the MWR or "Middle-east War Resolution" as it would allow for unchecked war-powers against IRAQ, IRAN and Syria... Heck, if we're going that far, we might as well have drafted the TWR or "Total War Resolution" in which Bush can go to war with anyone, anywhere, anytime and for any reason whatsoever. OhWait... he can do that already. (gulp) Anyway, if you can direct me to anything describing this alternative and how the fear of it forced the Democrats to vote for the IWR, I'd be happy to check it out (and even revise my opinion if it's convincing enough; no fixed minds here--limited only by the availability and quality of input).
|