Reply #52: I'm as confused as you

[karynnj]

My reading was that with UN authorization he would NOT have to come back. That would lead to questions of what is Un authorization. The amendment had some specifics - but it seemed that Bush simply ignored any promises or conditions.

What surprises me is how many voted either for the IWR or the Levin bill. All of them were willing to go to war if necessary. All of them had some concept that the President could be constrained, but in reality he likely couldn't. What is clear is that they forced through a really bad bill.

What I suspect happened is that some of those who voted for the IWR may have promised to do so to limit the scope and reasons. NO ONE HAS EVER CLAIMED to have done so - so there is a good chance I am wrong. But reading some floor statements some comment on changes made - to limit it to just Iraq, and to take out some of the reasons. (Durbin's amendment that failed would have explicitlylimited to just WMD.)

It makes sense that some would try to make the bill that was clearly going to pass better - but in this case, they got burned. They didn't make the war more likely, but they have been labeled pro-war. (At least Harkin and Kerry were anything but pro-war.)
Consider the situation if they didn't amend the IWR to limit just to Iraq.