"If the IWR had failed, we wouldn't be in Iraq now." Who are we kidding?

[pnwmom]

Remember October 2002? We were still reeling from 9/11. Bush still enjoyed the strong support of a wide swath of the American public. Colin Powell gave his presentation before the UN. Condi Rice warned us about mushroom clouds in U.S. cities. And Bush was pushing the meme that Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. The average American had bought the con job.

Suppose all the Senate Democrats had held together and voted against the IWR -- deliberately timed by Bush to occur right before the election. The most likely outcome is that we would have lost even more seats than we did lose!

Then, in January 03, Republicans would have been swept into office with even bigger majorities. And the first item on their agenda: to approve their own IWR -- without any of the conditions that the Democrats had tried to put on it.

And we would have been better off because . . . . ?

[tkmorris]

1. You are exactly correct IMHO

For some Dems a vote against the IWR would have effectively been a resignation from Congress. I don't blame them for this; I blame the constituents who would have cheerfully tossed them out on their ear if they had opposed it.

[pnwmom]

8. Feingold was not running for Senate in 2002.

Unlike Kerry, for example.

I wonder how much of Feingold's bravery was due to the fact that he wasn't up for election in a few weeks.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Oh please, Kerry was running without GOP opposition in the most blue state in the country

[pnwmom]

39. Kerry, unfortunately, already had his eyes on 2004.

And how he would position himself. He took a calculated risk when he decided to trust that the President was telling the truth -- that the point of the IWR was to force Hussein to allow the inspectors in. And that there were enough conditions built into the IWR to prevent Bush from acting unilaterally.

Kerry made a mistake. I wish he hadn't voted as he did. But I'm not going to hold it against him forever, or against any of the Democrats who voted for the IWR. As far as Bush was concerned, timing this vote for October 2002 was a brilliant tactical move -- a win/win for him, no matter how things worked out.

[A Simple Game]

57. A statement I can agree with.

"But I'm not going to hold it against him forever, or against any of the Democrats who voted for the IWR."

I hope I never screw up and people on DU find out about it. Many on DU would rather see a Republican voted into office than vote for a Democrat, especially Hillay, that made one mistake.

[pnwmom]

67. I guess I've gotten more cynical with age.

All I care about is that we elect the best of the candidates. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, or even close to it.

[A Simple Game]

79. Right, the only perfect candidate would be ourselves.

And no doubt we would disappoint ourself on occasion.

[LittleClarkie]

103. I don't believe that about his motivation. But I do appreciate

what you say about moving on and such.

In my opinion, he has too much regard for the military, and to much experience in foreign relations, for it to have been a purely political decision. I do think he was more hawkish than people would have preferred.

[The Count]

2. Dunno about losing seats - W would have gone to war regardless, true, but...

How about putting the strategery plans down and think another way: who is responsible for the senseless killing going on in Iraq? I mean, besides BFEE, PNAC and the GOP? Who would you like to look back at you from the mirror? An enabler of this atrocity, or someone who at least tried to stop it?
As for losing seats, forget the propaganda polls - anyone running opposing war would have won. it's why Wellstone died, Diebold stole and both parties worked against Lamont. The secret is out - the majority in this country was ALWAYS against the war!

[mikehiggins]

3. The majority of the people were looking at two holes in the ground

Anyone who spoke out against revenge was toast, and everyone knew it. Where the Dems fell down on the job was in not speaking up right away and proclaiming that Bush was full of shit with his mushroom clouds and all the rest. The issue should have been raised that Saddam was on Osama's hit list, just like the "moderates" in Eygpt and the "traitors" in Saudi Arabia.

And nothing was said that was reported on the mass media, which was another nail in the coffin of avoiding war. The media was beating the drums, and lining up their own cannon-fodder to embed with the troops, and if you did stand up, like Kuchinich, you were laughed off as some sort of wide-eyed loon.

But would those who voted against the bill have faced likely defeat? Yeah, I think so as well. WHat bothered me was the feeling that if I was placed in that position, I would have done the right thing and the people who supposedly represent me were afraid to.

[pnwmom]

5. I don't expect my representatives to have a suicide impulse.

Or even to be martyrs to the cause. Especially when the loss of their political careers puts someone much worse in office.

[pnwmom]

4. I strongly disagree. There's nothing to show that the majority

was always against the war. I certainly didn't feel that when I was out there waving signs on street corners.

Bush was riding high and the public, by and large, was ready to support him in anything.

[LynnTheDem]

16. Many polls clearly showed the US majority opposed.

Many people spoke out opposing bush's bullshit, including many republicans.

FACTS.

December 17, 2002

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm



When UN approval as well as allied support is specified, an overwhelming majority would favor invasion under this condition, while an overwhelming majority opposes proceeding without it.
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/multilat_support.cfm

January 13, 2003

Poll: Majority of Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001415.html



US Public Want to Give UN Inspectors More Time

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Fifty-eight percent said they would like to see more evidence, and 71 percent said the United States should make public its own evidence if the U.N. inspectors can't find hard evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

In one clear sign of public caution on Iraq, 43 percent of respondents said the U.N. inspectors should have as much time as they like to scour Iraq. A quarter said the inspectors should have "a few months" or more. Another quarter supported a deadline of a few weeks or less for the inspections.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A23564-2003Jan21

Even republicans spoke out against bush's insanity;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=49506

Rep. Ron Paul (R) speaking on the House floor, September 10, 2002;

Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

And NO, the world DID NOT believe Saddam had "WMD".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3908733

America; #53 in media freedom. It shows.

[pnwmom]

18. The question is whether they supported the IWR, not whether they

supported the war. Many average Americans trusted the govt. that the IWR was simply meant as a way to force the inspectors in.

Show me the polls saying that the majority opposed the IWR, with all of its conditions.

[The Count]

97. IWR legitimized W's war, even the BS about OBL=Saddam

made it seem as a national decision. Those who legitimize crimes are called accomplices - no matter how you split hairs. Blood on their hands.

[loyalsister]

99. Agreed

If they had lost seats, it would be the people who voted the government in to approve a war who would be accountable.
As it stands, it is the Dems who were protecting their seats who were accomplices.

[The Count]

96. Thank you so much for this. The false perception is still lingering in people's minds

Truth is, we were never asked if the war was needed - the only questions were: should we go NOW or wait for the UN to agree?

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I suspect your right -

any dem could have held his (her) seat voting against IWR in they couched it in terms of refusing to be distracted from the war against the terrorists and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. We were already there, we had him on the run, and with a little effort we could have had him. It would also have kept many ME nations happy with us, shown we can't be fucked with, and served as a strong warning to potential enemies -- with Bin Laden in custody, Saddam might have been more conciliatory, the Iranian moderates would have stayed in power, and the Darfur crisis might never have begun.

By attacking Iraq we showed our fatal weakness.

[pnwmom]

13. Bush hadn't made it clear yet that he had given up on bin Laden.

That came later. He was pushing the Iraq war and the fight in Afghanistan as all part of one battle and, unfortunately, most Americans believed him . . . at that time.

[LynnTheDem]

7. There's the right thing to do, regardless of political gains.

PEOPLE ARE DEAD. FUCK "losing seats".

And FUCK every single American who supported this illegal immoral supreme crime hitleresque war of aggression, invading a nation that hadn't been doing one damn MFing thing to anyone.

[pnwmom]

9. The people would have died REGARDLESS of the vote.

That's the point. Bush scheduled the vote for October, knowing that the polls put him solidly ahead, knowing that a vote against the popular war would hurt anyone who cast it.

If by some chance the Democrats opposed him, all they were doing was signing their own political death certificates. (Except for those like Feingold who were not running in 2002.) Bush knew that he could get his IWR passed in January, no matter what happened in October. This was just a chance for him to put the squeeze on Democrats.

I don't require political martyrdom out of our politicians. I prefer some common sense.

[CTLawGuy]

11. he's gonna do it anyway, why not help him

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

14. We would have helped him more, actually, if we opposed it.

Because then he would have portrayed the Democrats as all "soft on terrorism" and attained even larger majorities to help all his causes in January.

He was probably hoping that the Democrats would oppose him en masse, so that he could watch the terrorized American public throw them out of office in even greater numbers.

[CTLawGuy]

15. right

just like not passing the tax cuts back in 2001 would have made the economy downturn even more than it already did....

[pnwmom]

17. Oh yeah, sure. Great analogy.

:sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Actually, the tax cuts were good economically but it was unintended

Bush was proposing tax cuts during a period of economic growth when he was running for president. Any economist will tell you that cutting taxes during a period of economic growth is a dumb idea. It just so happens that when he took office we were in a recession and either tax cuts or increased government spending are a good way to stimulate the economy during recession. Shrub would've cut taxes either way and just got lucky that he happened to be able to do it during a recession.

Plus the tax cuts only helped in the very short run. We're certainly not enjoying the fruits of the supposed economic growth today.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Yes in 2002 we would've lost in greater numbers

Which by my count as I said in another post is 2 Senate Seats Landrieu of Louisiana and Johnson of South Dakota.

By 2004 the public opinion was against the IWR and Democrats would've had a lot more credibility if they had been opposed to it from the start instead of being seen as "flip-flopping".

[1932]

61. I don't think Americans perceived the Democrats as flip floppers on the IWR

in 2004.

Kerry certainly didn't make it easy for himself with the "I was for it before I was against it" comment about the allocations bill for the war, but I don't think anyone was really confused about the democrats' support for the IWR.

[PassingFair]

112. Baloney.

Kerry was UNABLE to even DEBATE the evils of the
ILLEGAL invasion of IRAQ, having voted to authorize it.

It was pitiful.

[rockymountaindem]

88. And then we wouldn't have the Senate now...

and then we'd be even worse off. Honestly, I never saw this issue the way it's framed in the OP, but it's a good way to think about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Maybe, but Kerry might be in the White House

[PassingFair]

111. So all THESE democrats HELPED him? WTF?

Senators who voted NO:

Note: Includes one independent and one REPUBLICAN with 20/20 FORESIGHT.


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Wonder what THEY had going for them?

On Edit:

The MAJORITY of dems in the House voted AGAINST IWR

Note: List includes SIX REPUBLICANS and 1 INDEPENDENT
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

You live in a CRAZY world :crazy: if you think THESE politicians are the
ones who HELPED bush. MY votes and praise is reserved for THESE guys.

[1932]

60. Because a Senate with more Republicans would have passed a broader IWR

they would have thrown Iran in on the deal too, perhaps

[pnwmom]

68. Exactly. We could have ended up with an even more

dangerous resolution.

[CTLawGuy]

69. I don't think it would have been possible to pass a broader IWR

that thing is as broad as it could have been.

If Bush had wanted to add Iran, he would have done so, and some Dems would have spinelessly gone along.

[pnwmom]

72. Not true. The original bill was quite a bit broader than the one that

was passed. In January, with Republican majorities, the original bill would have sailed through.

[CTLawGuy]

75. how was it broader?

Bush didn't need to make a determination to Congress, he could just go?
that's about all I can think of.

[pnwmom]

78. Here's one source on that:

John Kerry's statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2998938&mesg_id=2998938

"I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

SNIP

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.

Snip...

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

[CTLawGuy]

82. the problem is

"enforcing" UN resolutions is a vague term that "regime change" could fall under even if not explicit in the resolution. It did not specify HOW he is to enforce them.

The IWR "mentioned" the UN, but only to say that Congress supports his efforts there. That is not a requirement that he go back to the UN before going to war, or use the UN in any further way.

As to the "Iraq vs. Gulf Region" business, I think that was a false compromise. Bush had no intention of invading other countries. If he did, he never said anything. He kept saying "Iraq, Iraq Iraq."

He used a common negotiating tactic of taking a fake position which he ascribed no real value to in order to "concede" it in exchange for something real from the other side. In terms of Iraq, the IWR couldn't have been broader.

And also many say here that he would have gone to war with Iraq anyway, without a resolution. Well, if he had any intent to invade other countries, he would have done so even absent a resolution authorizing it. Thus, he never wanted to invade anywhere other than Iraq.

Finally, Kerry misunderstands the nature of "regime change." Regime change was not (ostensibly) conceived to be an end in itself, but was rather the means of "enforcing all relevant security council resolutions." If Saddam does these bad things, we punish him by taking him out of power.

[1932]

80. I'm interested in hearing your response to the post below which

rebuts this post.

It creates the inference that, if you didn't realize that broader resolutions were on the table, then your opinion on this issue might not be as informed as it could be.

[CTLawGuy]

83. well, here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3000312#3000713

[PassingFair]

22. The MAJORITY of house dems

voted NO.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/5/15227/6129

snip>"The vote in the House was almost as heartbreaking as that in the Senate, with a twist. Democrats here voted against the resolution 81-126, with 1 abstention. 6 Republicans voted against the resolution, as did Bernie Sanders (I-VT). 215 Republicans voted to approve the resolution."

Take a minute and read the article, as it refutes everything you've written.

"If by some chance the Democrats opposed him, all they were doing was signing their own political death certificates. (Except for those like Feingold who were not running in 2002.)"

"...political DEATH CERTIFICATES?" Use HYPERBOLE MUCH?

That was NOT martyrdom.

Those that voted yes did so out of cynicism.

The republicans who pushed this war have been punished by the voters.
Should unrepentant enablers in our own party be REWARDED?

I think not.

[pnwmom]

24. I will concede that a vote against the IWR

would not have been political suicide for every Democrat. But it would have been for many who were running in the year 2002 in less secure seats.

At that time, the IWR was being strongly promoted as a way to force Hussein to allow the inspectors in. Conditions were attached to the resolution that were meant to prevent Bush from starting the war in the absence of WMD's or UN support.

Just quickly looking over the link, one major problem with its analysis is that it looks at Democratic turnover in BOTH the 2002 and 2004 elections. By November 2004, many Democrats had realized that the war was a disaster. But we lacked this 20/20 hindsight in October 2002.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. I count two Senators that would've lost in '02 had they voted NEA on the IWR

Johnson of South Dakota and Landrieu of Louisiana. Had Torricelli actually stayed in the race, you could make a case that it would've hurt him, but without his personal ethics problems he could've voted NEA and been re-elected in New Jersey.

[CTLawGuy]

71. I would not add Landrieu

when she began to stand up against Bush (over sugar production) in the waning days before the runoff, she actually improved significantly in the polls.

[pnwmom]

73. Sugar production is one thing. The "war on terrorism" is another.

[CTLawGuy]

76. standing up to Bush and acting like you have a pair

in her case, ovaries, is the key.

[PassingFair]

101. The inspectors were already IN Iraq.

They had to leave to make way for SHOCK AND AWE.

It doesn't take 20/20 hindsight to see what BULLLSHIT the administration was shoveling.

MOST OF OUR DEMS saw it with 20/20 FORESIGHT.

The ones who voted to authorize figured they
could spin it.

CYNICAL.

And HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED.

AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS will no doubt lose
their tenous grip on
middle class life here
at home.

The children of the boomers will not be able
to afford college. The ones who are in college
or have graduated will not be able to pay on
their loans.

Houses will be left in foreclosure.

We are a BANKRUPT nation because of this
illegal and immoral war.





We have been SCREWN.

[CTLawGuy]

10. In the words of Stewie Griffin

"thaaaaaaaank you." (no sarcasm intended)

[The Count]

98. Yup. Politics when human lives are involved are crass and inexcusable

I understand how negotiation and compromising works, but that's only acceptable for things that you can change later. Killing is not negotiable. (Neither is torture, BTW)

[Julien Sorel]

12. Stop talking sense!

It confuses too many people here.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. Many Dems who supported it weren't running in 2002, such as Lieberman

and Clinton so I doubt they voted as they did because they were afraid of political repercussions.

The three seats we lost, two voted for the IWR and had Wellstone lived, I bet he would have won, even voting against the IWR.

Durban won and voted against the IWR

Levin won and voted against.

Reed won and voted against


We would have been way better of if a majority of Senate Dems had voted against the IWR. The Repos used it against the Dems in 04. And The hawks tried to cut the war as popular by saying, "a majority of the Senate Dems voted for it."

The Senators that really needed to vote against it were the Senators who weren't up for re-election. It sure hurt Kerry in 04 for voting for it.

[pnwmom]

20. Kerry WAS up for re-election. I don't understand your point.

But I do know that running for re-election as Senator from Massachusetts and running for election as President of an evenly divided country must require a lot of political gymnastics.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. I just edited. Maybe it's a little clearer now....

and what about the rest of my post?

You didn't respond to the seats we lost and to the propaganda value of the right saying over and over, "A majority of Dem Senators supported it..."

Just a few more principled votes by people not up for re-election and that would have helped out a lot.

[pnwmom]

23. As I said, Kerry was up for election in 2002, and the IWR

was being spun as a way to force Hussein to allow the weapons inspectors in. No war was supposed to go forward unless the inspectors were denied access, and we had obtained UN backing. But in the end, all our conditions meant nothing, because Bush went in anyway.

If the Bush admininstration had actually followed the wording of the IWR, then that vote wouldn't have hurt Kerry or any other Democrat. The inspectors would have finished their job and we wouldn't have attacked Iraq.

It's easy to have 20/20 hindsight -- but all of the Democrats were taking a calculated risk in this vote, and the ones who were up for election in 2002 were taking the biggest risk. Someone like Reed, who is very popular in Nevada, or Wellstone in Minnesota, could safely vote against the IWR. But to other Democrats it would have meant political suicide.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. It was Reed in Rhode Island. Reid in Nevada voted for it and just won

re-election in 06.

All the Dems weren't really taking a calculated risk. Clinton was safe as hell, but she liked the war. Still does.

Well, she says she likes it but not the way it's being run, to be more exact.

I totally understand those who were facing re-election being worried, but often real honest to god principle will trump jingoism and fear.

Byrd proved that. He wasn't fooled that it was just to get the inspectors back in. My Dem Senator tried to use that BS on me, and the "it will take another vote of the UN too," but when bush pulled the inspectors and invaded, he didn't say squat about it.

[pnwmom]

27. Byrd's seat was safe. And I'm glad he took a stand.

I don't think Clinton "liked" the war. But I was disappointed in her vote, which I think she made with the 2008 Presidential election in mind, unfortunately.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Kerry was running with no GOP opposition in Massachusetts in 2002

The argument that Kerry had to worry about his re-election in 2002 is complete bullshit and frankly it makes Senator Kerry look bad by enforcing stereotypes about him.

And Wellstone had a cult following in Minnesota but that didn't mean he was a shoe-in for re-election. Wellstone was the only Senator that had to face a tough re-election campaign in 2002 that voted NEA on the IWR.

[pnwmom]

35. I think Kerry's vote had more to do with his plans for running in 2004.

If he had voted against the IWR, that would have been portrayed as a vote against forcing Hussein to allow the inspectors in. He couldn't have known -- known of us could, despite some of our claims -- that Bush would order the inspectors to leave the country before their job was completed, and to invade without getting the support of the UN.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. No, but he could've tried to get a stronger resolution so Bush couldn't do that

Read the floor speeches of people who voted against the IWR, Wellstone's in particular. They believed just as everyone else did that there were WMD's in Iraq or at least stated that they did. They also knew full well that Bush was trigger happy and would rush to war without a UN approval. Thus they opposed the IWR because they wanted Bush to have to come back to congress to get war approval after making the case to the UN and getting the UN on board.

Not only that, but several military people including Jim Webb and Wes Clark were warning congress about the possible insurgency as early as 2002, something that Bush was flat-out denying. Given America's history with Vietnam and Korea, Senators and Congressmen should've known that if soldiers were coming back in body bags, people would turn against the war. Jim Webb and Wes Clark were saying that soldiers would be killed occupying Iraq. Senator Byrd in particular knew this history quite well and voted no on the IWR for the sake of our troops and the sake of their long term credibility.

In 2002 voting against the IWR seemed like the only way to win the White House if you took your advice from political consultants. However if the Democrats had taken their advice from the military and historical experts they would've realized that the situation in Iraq would not be the easy victory that Bush was claiming it would be. Doing the right thing is always hard at the time but in the long run it has benefits, some of which are political.

Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have both said that their no vote on the IWR was the best vote they have ever cast and given the length of Ted Kennedy's length in the Senate that's really saying something

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Kerry has a very safe seat and is a real poor example for your

argument. He could have voted against the war and it most certainly would not have cost him his seat. He was far more concerned about his presidential ambitions, not his senatorial career.

[ProSense]

56. It wasn't a vote for

war.

Kerry Angers GOP in Calling For 'Regime Change' in U.S.

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A10

Republicans jumped on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday in the wake of reports that the Democratic presidential candidate had told a New Hampshire audience that "we need a regime change in the United States."

Snip...

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) led the chorus of GOP critics who attacked Kerry for challenging Bush during wartime. "Senator Kerry's remark, equating regime change in Iraq with regime change in the United States, is not what we need at this time," Hastert said. "What we need is for this nation to pull together, to support our troops and to support our commander in chief."

Snip...

Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to GOP criticism by saying: "Clearly, Senator Kerry intended no disrespect or lack of support for our commander in chief during wartime, but the point of this campaign is, obviously, to change the administration of this government. And unlike many of his Republican critics, Senator Kerry has worn the uniform, served his country, seen combat, so he'd just as soon skip their lectures about supporting our troops."

more...

I don't think Senator Kerry was interested in a popularity contest!

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Oh please he voted for the IWR.

And his weaseling on this issue during the campaign drove me absolutely nuts.

[ProSense]

59. "Oh please"? That doesn't change the facts! The IWR was not a vote for war. n/t

[pnwmom]

66. His statement on the reason for his vote was very clear.

"I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

"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.

Snip...

"As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2998938&mesg_id=2998938

[CTLawGuy]

74. his statement isn't the law

the resolution text is, and it empowered Bush to start a war with Iraq.

[pnwmom]

84. Only under conditions that he did NOT meet.

[bullimiami]

25. the midterm 2002 election was rigged just like the rest of the recent elections.

so the notion that the dems lost it or would have lost it worse based on their behavior is flawed.
i think polls showed otherwise but 'surprise' the polls were all amazingly wrong.

that being said.. bush was going into iraq. resolution or no from either congress, the one which was passed did NOT give him permission to do what he did, or the UN, whose resolution he could not get.

So I agree. The IWR was just a propaganda tool and 9/11 was cover, Iraq was on the agenda from the day he took office.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I don't deny that, but we would've gained in the long run, IMO

The party would've looked much better had we been against the war from the start instead of being perceived as flip-flopping. I think that had Kerry voted against the IWR he might be President today.

[pnwmom]

37. You're right. If the Dems had had the clear vision that 20/20 hindsight

gives us, then the Party would look great right now.

Unfortunately, the situation was murkier in October 2002, and the IWR was supposed to be about giving Bush a tool for forcing Hussein's hand.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. No hindsight necessary, all that is needed is a little history and expert advice

Robert Byrd was saying that the IWR was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution all over again. Pretty strong words coming from someone who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in the Senate.

Wes Clark, Jim Webb, and other military experts were warning congress that there would be an insurgency, despite Bush saying that Iraqis would greet us as liberators.

The Iraq War was a disaster waiting to happen and there were plenty of very intelligent people saying that it would happen as early as 2002. Democrats could've easily listened to the experts but instead they chose to listen to their political consultants.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Thousands of pajama-clad blogbarians got it right

sitting in their mom's basements surfing the internets they figured out that the war was bullshit before October. This did not require 20/20 hindsight, it required political courage, and our party has had almost none of that for 30 years.

[pnwmom]

70. Millions of us got it right. Big deal.

Either the Bush administration was lying, or it was not. Any one of us had a fifty-fifty chance of guessing right.

[Skittles]

31. I DON'T GIVE A F***

VOTING FOR THAT PIECE OF SHIT IWR WAS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO, PERIOD.

[leftofthedial]

32. because the repukes would be even more clearly culpable now

and unable to justify it by saying "everyone supported it"

They've used Democratic support for IWR both to justify the war and to attack Democratic candidates in two elections since.

I believe king george would have invaded come hell or high water, but he didn't need Democrats to sell their principles and their country down the river to do it.

And you ignore the fact that many of us and MILLIONS worldwide knew the truth. Political expedience is not justification for sacrificing one's principles IMHO. Not when it means war and certain death for thousands.

[pnwmom]

38. The fact that Bush would have invaded "come hell or high water"

means that the October 2004 vote was practically meaningless. It was just a tool that Bush used to bludgeon the Democrats with.

Bush was going to get his resolution in January, if he didn't get it in October. And then he ignored the conditions written into the law. When he kicked the inspectors out and attacked Iraq, he was the one that chose war and death, not the Democrats.

[leftofthedial]

42. no. the vote had many effects.

one of which was to compromise many leading Democrats.

Bush committed impeachable offenses and would have no matter what, but the lack of any serious opposition to IWR made it easier for the neocons and gave the superficial appearance of America being united in favor of the war.

Why didn't our representatives know what we did? Or if they did know, should we now just ignore that they knowingly participated in creating the horror that is the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq?

[pnwmom]

44. We didn't KNOW. We just had a gut instinct not to trust Bush,

and our instincts turned out to be correct.

[leftofthedial]

48. speak for yourself

those of us who were around for previous incarnations of the bush cabal

who did research on PNAC and the neocons and their agenda

who did research on weapons inspections in Iraq


KNEW.

[pnwmom]

50. You didn't know that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN

was fictitious. Even he may not have known.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. What?

I was laughing my ass off at both Powell's bullshit presentation and the farce of the bullshit media system pretending that it had extreme gravitas. Wow, power point graphics of what mobile weapons labs might look like! Now that was some credible evidence. A picture of where a truck wasn't! OH MY GOD! SEND IN THE MARINES!

We had this discussion then and plenty of us called this out for exactly what it was: complete and total bullshit.

[pnwmom]

62. You called it correctly. But you had no proof.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. Yes absolutely correct

We had no proof that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately the burden of proof was on the positive assertion that he did, thus providing at least an arguable case for intervention. That burden of proof was never met. We did not have to prove that Powells inane 'evidence' was faulty, the fact that he presented nothing serious at all was the end of the case for war.

[LynnTheDem]

86. Yes actually, we did know.

The world was embarrassed for Powell.

Did you not watch his UN presentation? Did you not see the faces on the UN members?

Yes, we knew.

[leftofthedial]

89. again, you're wrong

he repeated a known lie about aluminum tubes

and another about yellow cake

the photograph he showed of the "mobile bio lab" was debunked within hours by weapons inspectors and bio experts.

we knew.

his presentation was not intended by the cabal to present new trustworthy information. It was intended to lend his supposed credibility to the lies they were already telling AND to compromise him to the point that he was no longer a political rival.

If he didn't know that the big picture and the particulars of the WMD rationale for war were lies (as he'd now have us believe), then he was incompentent to the point of negligence or a gullible fool or both. IMHO, he knew damn well he was lying his ass off, but as he had been for his entire career, he was just being the good toady to RW power.

[CTLawGuy]

77. I knew

that the inspectors were in and were not finding anything.

Even still, it is Congress' responsibility to decide when we go to war, and when they delegate that to the president, they are vicariously responsible when he decides to go to war.

[Mass]

104. They were not in when the IWR was signed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441

Resolution 4411, that allows the inspector to go in Iraq, was signed in November 2002, one month after the vote of the IWR.

I am among those who think it was an error to vote for the IWR, but the facts that you quote are incorrect.

[CTLawGuy]

107. you are right

my mistake.

[AtomicKitten]

43. If you are suggesting that that particular vote didn't matter,

then I couldn't disagree more vehemently. Extraneous factors such as vulnerable seats, an eye on 2004, dimson was going to invade anyway, etc., etc. are just an embarrassingly morally weak cover for grown men and women who were charged with the job of voting with honor and not watching their political rear-ends.

I'd give you a mile if we were quibbling about anything else, but war? I'm sorry but if we as citizens can't discern the morality of that vote and expect our leaders to do the right thing, then we are truly in deep shit as a nation. I honestly believe that the excuses doled out here at DU to rationalize that vote have more to do with providing cover for favored potential candidates than anything else.

You are more than welcome to your opinion on this issue, but I stand in stark disagreement.

[pnwmom]

45. It did not matter, in the sense that Bush would have attacked

Iraq with or without the October 2002 IWR. If the Democrats had denied it to him, then the Republicans would have approved it as soon as they were voted in in January.

[AtomicKitten]

46. And it would have been better to have gone down that way.

Then the Republicans would own it lock, stock and barrel. History would record it as THEIR WAR. Instead it is now and will be remembered as a war begun with bipartisan support.

BushCo's case for war reeked. It was epic bullshit easily disproved by reams of data from our own government; I wrote about it weekly while it was going down and could not believe it unfolding before my eyes.

The Democrats did NOT do themselves - NOR US - a favor by going along with this, particularly for the lame-ass reason of saving their own political asses.

I'm sorry, this is just an issue that rocks me to my very core.

[cali]

47. First of all,

who are you quoting?

Whether or not the invasion of Iraq would have gone forward is not my objection to people like Kerry, Edwards and Hillary voting for it. My objection is that it endorsed bush whatever he decided to do. As Byrd and Leahy and others said so bluntly, it was a blank check.

[MadHound]

49. Well, considering that virtually every measuable poll showed

That the vast majority of Americans were not wanting to do a damn thing about Iraq, including voting on the IWR, until after the inspectors finished their job, I think that your premise is not valid in any way shape or form.

Rather I would suggest that the IWR vote hurt many many candidates. I can personally attest that my Senator at the time, Jean Carnahan, did not receive my vote, and many other votes in Missouri, based solely on her IWR.

Forcing Bush to proceed without the IWR would have shown the world that we were not bipartisanly bloodthirsty, and we actually might be getting more cooperation in the international arena now that the Dems are back in power.

The primary job of any represenative, Senate or House, is to represent the collective will of your constituents. As I stated, that will was to wait on doing anything until the inspectors were done. If the inspectors had been allowed to finish their job, they would have confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq, showing up Bush for the liar that he is, and we quite possibly wouldn't be in Iraq right now. Instead, Senators and Congressmen thought of their own welfare ahead of their job duty, and tens of thousands of people have died because of that decision.

I do not reward people for failure in their job, especially when that job results in such bloodshed. I especially don't vote for unrepentent war hawks who have time and again, despite the proof that this is an illegal and immoral war, continue to vote for funding the bloodshed.

If you continue to vote for the same ol' same ol', reward bad politicians for their bad decisions, how in the hell do you expect the US to recieve better government? Everybody else in this country is held accountable for their actions, why should our so called leaders be any different?

[pnwmom]

63. The IWR was sold to the American public as a way to

force Hussein to allow the inspectors in.

We wouldn't have forced him to proceed without an IWR. All we would have succeeded in doing was force him to wait for January, when the new Congress would have given him anything he wanted.

[MadHound]

81. Funny then, isn't it, that inspectors were already heading back to Iraq

Well before the IWR was voted on<http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.un/index.html>

Negotiations for the return of the inspectors was well under way, and progress was being made. Inspectors would have probably returned to Iraq whether or not we passed the IWR. Sure, we could have tabled the bill, kept it around as a big stick, but I seriously doubt that we would have had to use it. Hussein had nothing to hide, and this was a prime opportunity to embarass Bush by coming up clean on WMDs.

And so what if all we had been doing was postponing this until January. By then, enough of the initial reports were coming back clean that there would have been even less support for the IWR than there was in October. But noooo. Instead of thinking about the innocent lives they were consigning to death, instead of simply doing their damn job as represenatives of their constituents collect will, the Democrats decided to play politics instead, putting their own career ahead of the death of innocents. This has been further compounded over the succeeding years as these same Democrats, Hillary leading the charge, tried to outhawk the war hawks, and voting for every single war funding bill that came down the pike, even when it was clearly obvious that our involvement was a mistake, and that our actions were both illegal and immoral.

Sorry, but I will never trust a person who puts their own career, their own interests ahead of the lives of innocents, especially with the highest office in the land.

[Mass]

105. 1441 was voted one month after the IWR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441

Of course, Kofi Annan is not an idiot, and does not need Bush to start negotiating and trying to stop a war, but, if the US had vetoed, all his work would have been useless (as it eventually turned out to be, because Bush did not let them finish their job).

This does not mean the IWR was a good thing, but the fact you present are misleading. An agreement to send the inspectors to the UN was only reached one month after the IWR. Whether there is a link between the two is for everyone to guess.

[MadHound]

109. Sorry, but you cannot state that assumption as fact.

The UN and Iraq were negotiating an agreement to let the inpectors back in. Hussein had outside motivations for letting this happen besides the IWR. In fact one of the biggest was a huge Bush embarassment. Continued humanitarian aid also rode on this approval. In fact, the return of the inspectors was assumed to be a done deal by most people in the US, and 69% of them opposed the IWR in favor of letting the inpectors do and finish their job before any other action was taken.

Nice try, but it wasn't the IWR that prompted Hussein to let the inspectors in, but multiple other factors.

[Mass]

110. I was not making any assumption.

I stated that whether there was a link between the IWR and the inspector going back was not clear.

But this does not change the fact that the inspectors were not there when the IWR was signed. In addition, I said the IWR was a bad vote, something I have said since 2002.

So, please, spare us your indignation when I give you ONE FACT: The inspectors were not in Iraq when the IWR was signed. The rest, what you said and what I said, is all assumptions. I recognize it. You do not.

[ProSense]

51. Facts here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2998938&mesg_id=2998938

[pnwmom]

64. Thanks for the link to all this research, ProSense.

I think many memories have gotten hazy in the last five years.

[AtomicKitten]

87. no, just people confusing speeches (opinions) for facts

Opinions are not facts, but some here often confuse them for such and proffer them as the bedrock of their own opinion.

[ProSense]

91. Here is another fact that deniers claim is an opinion:

Bush lied! Not everybody agrees!

[AtomicKitten]

92. here's another fact that is actually relevant to the conversation

That's the point, dear. Bush lied and 28 Senators voted yes on the IWR. If you are comfortable excusing that, have at. Some of us are not.

But spare us all the barrage of opinion pieces that you call "facts." I honestly don't think you are even clear on the difference. If you can't process information and comes to your own conclusions, your opinion isn't really your own, is it?

[ProSense]

93. Fact: Bush lied! Opinion: your post. Am I right? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

94. somehow I knew I'd have to spell it out for you

I already answered your question but I'll play along.

Bush lied ...

and

... 28 Senators voted yes on the IWR.

Both facts when mixed together create a tasty remoulade worthy of discussion. Your opinion apparently is that since the first fact exists, the second doesn't matter.

My opinion as a Democrat that intends to hold my leaders accountable is that the second fact does matter.

See how that works? The digestion of a plethora facts should be the basis of an opinion and it also creates a basis for a difference of opinion. To cherry-pick one fact as the basis to ignore others is, well, not particularly thoughtful. But, as always, you are more than welcome to your opinion and I will continue to point out when you continue to confuse opinion - yours and the pundits you so heavily rely on - for fact. 'Kay?

[ProSense]

95. Fact: Bush lied! Opinion: your post. Am I right, yes or no? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Ok , but I disagree with this.

What you really are saying is that if the IWR didn't pass the first time it would have passed three months later. OK, I'll accept your assertion that we would have lost even more senate seats.

Personally I'd prefer my party to stand or fall on principle when it comes to issues as important as taking the nation to war. That way when the war turns out bad we don't have to listen to our party's candidate for president explain why he voted against the bad war before he voted for it. The war was inevitable, I'll grant you that, so a stand on principle while it might have resulted in a short term loss would have left us in an even stronger position when the Republican War became the manifest fraud and then the stunning disaster that it has become.

[pnwmom]

65. And we would have had that many more Republican incumbants

to defeat.

So I don't think our position would have been stronger, but that's just my opinion.

[SOS]

85. Powell's cartoons were presented in February 2003,

four months after the vote. Anyone who believed that Hussein could nuke London in "45 minutes" or deliver a mushroom cloud to the US was living in a fantasy world.
Iraq didn't have even one functional airplane, let alone nuclear-tipped ICBMs.
In 1991, Husseins few planes and pilots made a dash for Iran, never to be seen again.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we knew that then.
The Dems lost control of the Senate anyway, just 4 weeks later.
Sure, the Reps would have passed the IWR in January, but at least Bush couldn't now say, at every opportunity "The Democrats supported the war!".
All 11 Democratic amendments to the IWR were crushed in October. There were never any conditions accepted. So a January vote would have been the same: Giving Bush the sole determination to start the war whenever he wanted.
The House Dems voted against. If the Senate had followed, our party would have had nothing to do with this fiasco and we'd be in a better position now.
Bush would have been forced to use a national security directive to start the war, which would be extremely bad for Republicans today.

The real threat to our cities is a black market nuke in the hands of non-state actors. Neither Bush nor Congress has done squat on that one.

[dailykoff]

102. Agree. The authorization was a formality and a foregone conclusion.

The DECISION to go to war was the president's alone. Blaming Dems for the war is ridiculous.

[Mass]

106. I agree.

Of course, that does not make the vote for the IWR right, but unfortunately, you are right.

[ProSense]

108. One week before Bush illegally invaded Iraq:

One week before Bush illegally invaded Iraq