Reply #48: Senator Byrd [View All]

[frogmarch]

believed the IWR was too broad in scope and needed to be further discussed in the Senate.

Byrd never claimed to have evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD. Byrd wanted more than circumstantial evidence that Saddam did have WMD before giving the president the kind of authority that could lead the US into war. Byrd agreed that yes, the president has the Constitutional right to use force to defend our nat'l security, but Byrd didn't like Congressional authority in matters of war to be usurped by the president. Byrd objected to giving a president so much power. He was also concerned about the cost of a war on Iraq, if the situation came to that, and the sacrifice of our soldiers' lives. He also didn't like the idea of a unilateral war, if the situation were to come to war.

Byrd's concerns were echoed by the other dissenting senators. But the concerns were also echoed by the senators who voted for the IWR. Those concerns are clearly evident in John Kerry's Congressional speech on the IWR, in which he stated point-blank what the stipulations were to his signing. Weapons inspectors would return to Iraq. War was to be a last resort. War would not be unilateral, if it came down to war. And so on. But Bushco lied. Bushco broke its promises. And now Kerry and the others are catching hell for having believed them.

I don't recall any senators who voted no on the IWR saying they did so because they had evidence Bushco was lying about WMD. They voted no because they wanted to rehash the resolution before agreeing to sign it.