Reply #72: Article on the votes for the IWR & the Senate Select Committee

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh12052005.html

<snip>

"There were 19 members of that committee, all of whom had to know that Bush was lying. Only the four in caps above voted against the war. But if 19, out of what is often called a small and intimate club of 100 Senators, knew that the war was based on a lie, can one believe that the rest did not know? And given the bloodletting that was about to be unleashed, why did none of these 19, including Graham, release the "confidential" NIE report? What sort of men and women are these?

Let us carry this one step further. There were 23 Senate votes against the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to 36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter. They cannot claim we would have gone to war anyway. If they had been willing to filibuster against the war or filibuster to allow the inspectors to complete their work, there would have been no war. These are Dems on whom progressives rely. They betrayed us, and they have blood on their hands since it was in their power to stop the war. But their ambitions came first. (Chuck Hagel who now professes to be anti-war and John McCain who wears his "integrity" on his sleeve would have made two excellent additions among the Republicans.)

Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002. So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.

<snip>

Where does that leave us? The crisis that is the war in Iraq has become a crisis of Democracy. Right now it is crystal clear that there is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be further imperiled."


Looking back on October 2002...

Senate vote on war resolution delayed by voice of Byrd

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.byrd10oct10,1,1899718.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

<snip>

"Waving his well-worn miniature copy of the Constitution - always tucked in his breast pocket and often brandished during impassioned speeches - Byrd has warned darkly against expanding presidential power at the expense of Congress'.

"This is a blank check," he said. "Congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'

<snip>

As Senate Democratic leaders struggled last night to surmount obstacles Byrd had laid down to prolong the debate, the West Virginia senator took to the floor again. "I'm not stalling," he said. "Here is a question of life and death - can't I get more than 10 minutes?"