Opinions? I just realized something about the IWR vote.

[MH1]

I just wrote this on another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5523431&mesg_id=5523552

In answer to someone saying "hey, the IWR wasn't a vote for war, but to go back to the UN, right?"

You are correct.

Especially since a day or two before the vote, Bush gave a big speech emphasizing that this was not a vote for war, that he would go through the appropriate diplomatic actions and the UN and build a coalition...yada yada, just like the words say.

Many people criticize Dems who voted yes, saying that of course they already "knew" Bush was a liar and shouldn't have "trusted" him on this. But remember that at the time, the rest of the country was still mostly behind Bush, even if they questioned whether we should attack Iraq - but again, it was framed as pressure on the regime, not a blank check to go to war.

Had a lot more Dems voted against it, I predict that it still would have passed (there are a few hawk dems, remember), but the weak passage would have been used to blame Dems later when Saddam allegedly failed to cooperate with inspectors. The fact that Saddam did cooperate would be just as irrelevant in this version of history, as it was in the real version - Bush just claimed Saddam wasn't cooperating, yanked the inspectors and invaded anyway. Only in this version, the lack of cooperation would be blamed on the "weak" support shown for Bush by the, oh let's say, 50-48 passage of IWR. Then the "need" for the Iraq war could even be laid at the Dems feet, and we'd be worse off then we are today. Because today Bush CAN'T blame Dems for Saddam's non-cooperation, because he got a strong 'yes' vote - to pursue all diplomatic alternatives first.

In the real version of history, it was Bush and Bush alone who started the Iraq War. In the version as some would like to rewrite it, they would have an argument to blame the Dems too. A specious argument to be sure, but I bet it would have flown.

I just thought of this possible "alternate version of history." If it is a reasonable view, then I just became A LOT more comfortable with those who voted Yes on IWR.

Opinions, anyone?

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. It would have happened

But your analysis is far too smart for the morans at DU or DKos, I fear.

[MH1]

4. Thanks

but I like to think that if I post it enough maybe one or two will get it.

[fedupinBushcountry]

2. I have always said

no matter how the Dems voted it still would have passed.

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed

The only Repub who voted against it was Chaffee.

Also, many including me could not stand Bush, even after 9/11, I thought to myself why is he getting so much praise any President would have done the same thing, and I know a Dem Pres. would have not sat in a classroom, he would of been out of there immediately, just his presense in a school brought danger to the children. Remember we didn't know at the time who they were going to go after including the President, and his appearance at the school was publicized. That alone has always had me baffled, and I still to this day have a funny feeling they knew. :tinfoilhat: or :scared:

As far as the IWR vote, at the time and I was anti-war, I thought maybe this will stop the idiot from going to war. There was rumors going around that he would attack as early as November 2002. IMO Bush could of cared less about that IWR he was going to go to war no matter what, and he would of fought anyone who tried to stop him.

[MH1]

3. Agreed. People seem to forget what the zeitgeist was.

But also, my point is that it may have been worse for Dems now, if we had come out strongly against IWR but failed to defeat it. Because then there would have been a reason to blame Dems for "having" to go to war.

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. No matter

this corrupt bunch would of condemned the Dems either way.

[beachmom]

6. I thought the Dems controlled the Senate (barely) in '02?

If all Dems plus Jeffords plus Chaffee voted no, then it wouldn't have passed, right?

* was very popular at that point. It would have been a blow if he had lost that vote. However, he had a decent approval rating, and the Dems would have been killed on "not protecting America". I just think that vote was a lose-lose. Only the total lefties voted no. It was easy for them, but harder for moderates and those with presidential ambition. Everyone who was going to run for president except Kucinich voted yes.

It is true that * disregarded the U.N. and went to war, but do you really think he would have gone to war had he lost that vote (IWR)? Did Dems in the Senate have the power to stop that war? If they did, then I suppose that the one issue only anti-war constituency has a case that they want to throw out all elected officials who voted yes to IWR.

Tough one, MH1. Your argument works unless * would have decided differently had he lost the vote in the Senate.

[karynnj]

8. Just Zell Miller and Lieberman would have been enough

to let it pass, with Cheney's deciding vote. (Of the Republicans, only Chaffee voted for it)

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Dems-50 Rep.-49 I-1

So yes hypothetically if all Dems voted no, it wouldn't have passed. ut you would have to consider Lieberman, Miller, so that x's out Chaffee and Jeffords, so that would make it a split vote, and you know who decides a split vote, chickenhawk himself Cheney.

Also among those that voted yes, were Cleland and Harkin. You know Harkin the one who endorsed Dean. You don't see them being attacked on the left for their vote. :crazy:

[MH1]

10. IWR wouldn't have been defeated with that makeup.

Composition of 107th Congress (Senate):

* 50 Democrat
* 49 Republican
* 1 Independent


Among those 50 Democrats you have Zell Miller (DINO in the true sense of term), plus Lieberman. So that is 49-49 if no other Dems are hawks, and Cheney casts the tie-breaker.

Of course there was 1 Republican - Chafee - who voted no, but Dems would not have been able to count on that. Also I have not even accounted for other Dem hawks, who probably would not have been brought into line.

So if you look at this as a chess move - knowing you will lose the vote anyway - it becomes a matter of limiting the long-term damage. That requires some speculation as to your opponent's future moves. Unfortunately, unlike a chess game, in politics there is always the possibility of an unforeseen move.

And if Bush was going to do what he wanted anyway, he just would have found another way.

[karynnj]

15. Also, knowing that that was the resolution that was going to pass

Kerry and others worked on trying to get changes. Kerry in his floor statement lists the changes that they got. One limited it to Iraq, the other took out Regime change and a vague reason of destabalizing the Middle east. (Note they were reasons 2 and 3 given when there were no WMD.) Kerry, as an honorable man, likely took the negotiations seriously. I assume that some of the changes were made for promises of support.

Under a rule of law, the strategy to avoid war by working through the constraints of the resolution made sense. The purists saying that as early as 2002 the Senators should have known the process was a sham is amazing - and that's what they are saying.

I was surprised to read the floor statement when about the time of his recent Senate speech after Cheney and Bush distorted his record. When you combine it with Dr Rice's comments to Kerry at the last SFRC basically saying PNAC was the reason is startling. To me it's damning that the reasons THEY TOOK OUT were the reasons they now said they went.

[karynnj]

7. I not only thought the UN votes could stop it

I still can't believe that Bush said the inspections weren't working (and later that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in) when the Iraqis were destroying what turned out to be their only modern weapons. Who attacks a country months after we force them to begin disarming.

What amazes me is that Bush threw away this easy victory. He could have claimed that unlike dad or Bill Clinton, he really disarmed Saddam. He could then guilt trip all the liberals that the Democrats allowed the harmful sanctions to continue for the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and he cleaned Iraq up and stopped them. Ehy did the Democrats want the babies to die.

[karynnj]

11. I think part of the problem is the yes votes have so many reasons

That's why Kerry's comment that Senators who voted for the resolution are at most quilty of believing and trusting Bush is not true. It is true for him.

At least some Democrats were fully behind the war, for geo-political purposes - including Edwards and Lieberman. I have no idea why Hillary voted that way. This might explain why the Democrats, then in the minority, didn't make more noise when Bush invaded. I think I heard Kerry's comment only because it was so quotable "regime change here" and it so annoyed the RW that it was repeated. Note to DU: Candidates who call for regime change here, are by definition not boring.

[TayTay]

12. I think this gets kind of technical

Under the Constitution, the Congress declares war and the President acts as 'the chief General and commander' of the US military. However, this was quickly found to not really work. (It dates back to Jefferson and Tripoli.) We needed a stronger actor because legislative action might take too long.

Anyway, this depends on whether or not the nation is under 'imminent threat.' If we are under such a threat, then the President might be able to act. (Why might be able to act? Cuz the Supreme Court has never heard the War Powers law suits and this is a Constitutional grey area that is not well defined.)

Why is it so important tos bring up whether or not the President cooked that data about going to war and if the Senate was voting with anything like a complete set of information? Because it goes to 'imminent threat.' The war was sold because the White House said that Saddam Hussein had the capacity and the will and the possible intent to hit the United States with nuclear weapons and that such a strike could occur within 45 minutes of launch. This, as we now know, was untrue. If this was an intentional mis-lead, then this war is highly illegal because there was no 'imminent threat.' The resolution passed by Congress has a long list of things that Bush was supposed to do before invading another sovereign nation and he didn't do them.

If the mis-lead is intentional (And Sen. Kerry said it was yesterday on FTN) then this is an impeachable offense. The President has exceeded his authority. He also exceeded the authority granted to him under that Resolution.

We need to further investigate and see what the White House knew and when they knew it. Of course, a Rethug-controlled Congress is never going to do that. However, if one of the branches of Congress 'turns' to the Dems in '06, watch out. This could get real interesting and become a Constitutional stalemate.

I believe that Sen. Kerry, at the time of the vote on the Resolution, did state that he thought the Pres already had the power, under the Constitution, to act against Saddam if he was an 'imminent threat.' However, if the Pres and the Pentagon cooked the data and lied to the nation, then he did not and everything thereafter is an abuse of power.

[_dynamicdems]

13. Oh, I like how you think...

"Of course, a Rethug-controlled Congress is never going to do that. However, if one of the branches of Congress 'turns' to the Dems in '06, watch out. This could get real interesting and become a Constitutional stalemate."

Amen. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this is something the Senator has in mind. 2006 will also make it easier to get to the bottom of voting issues.

[Dr Ron]

14. Poor litmus test

You really can't tell someone's position on the war from how they voted.

Maybe most of the Democrats who voted yes were in favor. Kerry made his oppositon to the war very clear in his floor speech, as well as other public statements at the time (including an op-ed in the NY Times and Foreign Affairs). Kerry specifically quote Bush's statements that this wasn't a vote to go to war.

I noticed after Edwards made his statement that the vote was a mistake, some people quoted Edwards as proof that the vote was a vote to go to war. The error there is that Edwards supported the war but his statements on the IWR don't applyto people like Kerry who voted yes but opposed the war.

[paulk]

16. that's good

a couple of points about the IWR - The Democrats had asked Bush to hold off the vote until after the midterm elections, so that such an important decision could be debated more thoroughly and without the politics of an election hanging over it. Bush (Rove) of course refused, unlike Bush's dad, who had honored a similar request before the 1991 Gulf War. The whole point of the IWR was to drive a wedge into the Democratic coalition and it's unfortunate that the anti-war left bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

Another thing - and I may be wrong here - but aren't the reasons Bush used in his notification to Congress - that Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security - the same reasons any President could use under the War Powers Act to attack another country without Congressional approval?

[karynnj]

17. Yes they are and Kerry pointed out in floor speech that many thought this