How would YOU have voted on the IWR?

[Ravy]

I was watching a YouTube video today about an Oregon Science Professor who was explaining Global Warming as a matter of risk. I am sure many of you have seen it.

Basically the video was talking about the price of inaction versus the price of action.

A good portion of the comments we hear today about IWR go like this("You could *tell* Colin Powell was uncomfortable in his presentation to the UN", "The Weapons Inspectors hadn't found anything", "Hans Blix said it was a mistake", "Joe Wilson told us there was no uranium purchase"). All are correct, but all are *after* the IWR vote. The IWR vote was what put the inspectors back into Iraq.

The NIE at the time said that Saddam was continuing to manufacture WMD. There may have been some contradictory evidence *at the time of the vote* that some of the Congress may or may not have been privy to. The full extent of Bush's dishonesty and disdain for all things constitutional was not known in the degree that it is now.

So, the situation is that we want the Security Council to act. We think that Saddam has WMD. It is barely a year since we were attacked. We urge the Security Council to put in inspectors, and if Saddam is not cooperative, we are prepared to make him cooperate militarily.

The risk of inaction *at that point in time* is another attack on US soil. The cost of action is that if Saddam is in violation of the UN Sanctions concerning WMD, we will have to act militarily.

If Saddam did not have WMD, there should be little to no additional military cost (we were already doing fly-overs).

So, over many Democratic objections, the force resolution was placed in the bill to let the Security Council, the world, and particularly Iraq, know that we mean business.

The bill comes to the floor and you have to vote Yes, or No.

To tell you the truth, I probably would have voted Yes. The risk of a No vote was the possible loss of a great many lives.

I would only have voted No if I was convinced that Saddam Hussein had no WMD. I don't think anyone at the time really thought that. I remember that a big topic at the time was that if US Troops invaded, they would cause those WMDs to be used against us-- so for *everyone* saying that they were so against the war because Saddam didn't have WMD, there is a bit of DU-revision going on there.

I think the IWR YES vote was the correct one to make, at the time. I don't think many suspected that Bush would pull the inspectors out and start bombing while they hadn't found anything and were asking for more time. Saddam was not only attempting to comply with the UN Resolutions, but also allowed US reconnaissance flights in addition to those. And, he was talking to other countries about giving up power and going into exile. I can't think of anyone who would be so callous with the lives of our troops to go ahead and invade given those facts. But, there he is... Bush in the flesh. May he rot in Hell.

Bush wanted the war. Even, realistically speaking, if the IWR had not passed, knowing now what we didn't know then, he would have invaded Iraq without it.

I know this post will a) sink to the bottom or b) be covered with lots of "I would have voted NO". But I ask you to honestly think, would you really have risked another attack on US soil?

[Breeze54]

1. I was screaming NO at my C-Span feed on my TV... it was bad...very bad vote!

:grr:

[Ravy]

5. Curious, did you know what Bush was going to do with the resolution?

Actually, it seems Obama did. He pretty much picked Bush out as a liar.

I don't think I had that foresight then. I may have. I was certainly screaming a lot as the weapons inspectors were saying no WMD, when Bush said the 16 words, when Colin Powell was making shit up about balsa wood models. I didn't dream that we would actually invade without some hard evidence, and without the UN's approval.

I applaud you for seeing through to the extent of his dishonesty.

[Breeze54]

11. Yes! A repub president ALWAYS will wage a war!!

Always!! :grr:

Anytime a repub is in the WH;

tighten your belt and get ready for combat and joblessness, homelessness and many other 'nesses'.

[Alter Ego]

122. And just WHAT is your problem with this little fellow, hmmm?

[MiniMe]

76. I told people in the summer and fall of 2000 (before the election)

that * was going to take us to war in Iraq. Of course, the repukes I worked with didn't believe me. I fully believe that we would have gone to war with Iraq earlier than we did if it wasn't for 9-11. He had something to prove to his father. Of course, what he proved to his father is that he is still a frat boy asshole. Not, I think, what he intended to prove.

[uppityperson]

129. I'd've voted no, knew what mrbush was going to do with it indeed.

Wrote my senators before the vote, several times, putting in what he was going to use it as an excuse for. Wrote Sen Cantwell (voted yes) afterwords telling her shame and if she really thought mrbush wouldn't use it as an excuse she was either playing politics or too ignorant to continue to be my senator. She sent me back a chipper little "thanks for supporting me" note, I replied with a scathing letter telling them that this showed she took no notice of her constituents contacting her. She has since quit replying to my emails. uppity and pissed, yes.

[ingac70]

2. I would have voted NO...

Because I knew goddamn good and well Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, so it would not have been risking "another attack on US soil" to vote no.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Not just NO, but HELL, NO!!!

As far as I'm concerned, that was the blackest day in the history of the Democratic Party.

(And if you didn't think that giving Bush a blank check would lead inevitably to him taking us into war, you were only fooling yourself.)

[Bicoastal]

4. I will proudly say that I KNEW it was a bad idea, and said so to several people...

...we wanted to enter the Middle East as an invading, conquering force, and thought everything would be OK. Not for one second did we place ourselves in the shoes of the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Iranians, Turks, and Pakistanis who now rightfully hate our guts.

Only someone with absolutely no foresight or world perspective would have voted yes to the IWR.

[Ravy]

10. We did that in the first Gulf war. We had a

military presense in the region already.

[Bicoastal]

13. HUGE difference between troops stationed at a few bases and marching into Baghdad.

[Ravy]

32. The first Gulf war was a bit more than that...

but if the weapons inspectors had found that Saddam was in the process of building a nuclear weapon, or had massive stockpiles of biological weapons, I think we should have gone in.

I am not at all saying I supported the invasion/occupation when it happened. I was horrified. But I didn't expect anyone could be so dastardly.

And, then, after that, he got re-elected.

[Bicoastal]

50. You didn't expect Bush to invade Iraq?!

Forgive me for speaking bluntly, but...

...what were you, ASLEEP in 2002?

[Ravy]

54. Not on the basis of the IWR, I didn't. No.

I could lie and not look so stupid, I know.

I saw pretty quickly after the weapons inspectors were in, however. Then we got the progressively greater stretching of the truth to where it was evident that Bush would invade no matter what.

[Bicoastal]

61. But didn't you hear the language Bush was USING at the time?

Read this speech, made, by Bush on October 7, 2002.

The IRW passed the House on October 10, 2002, and the Senate on October 16, 2002. Don't tell me that if you were a congressman, and you heard this speech a few days before the vote, you wouldn't know what was on the horizon...

[Ravy]

65. I don't have time to read it now, but I promise to...

that sounds like *exactly* the type of link I was looking for when I posted the OP. I was trying to realistically evaluate how I would have voted, and I didn't find anything in searches that I thought would tip me off as to what was really coming.

Thank you.

[Milo_Bloom]

123. Did you read the IWR?? It was a declaration of war on its face.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

From the resolution:

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ..."

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security..."







"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "



That is, ON ITS FACE, a war resolution with no pre-conditions. It names Iraq a threat to the US, lays out the use of force authorized by the UN and then gives the president authority to use the Armed Forces to deal with the threat and to enforce the resolutions.

[pnwmom]

6. You left out something important.

You would have been voting as a majority Democrat in October, knowing that the odds were overwhelming that there would be a Rethug majority in January. (Bush's popularity was high then, hard as it is to remember, and he pulled many Rethugs in on his coattails.)

So you would have the choice between working with the Rethugs in October to produce an IWR with at least some contingencies, versus letting it go down to defeat in October -- knowing that in January, Bush would get any IRW he wanted with the new Congress. And the blank check Bush proposed -- according to Chuck Hagel and others -- would have allowed Bush to also attack Iran, Syria -- virtually anywhere he wanted.

I think most people have forgotten the awful choice the Dems were faced with in October 2002 -- if they were even aware at the time.

[The Traveler]

12. Very good point. n/t

[The Traveler]

19. Oops

** Good grief ... I responded to myself. Trave needs psychiatric help. Now!

[The Traveler]

23. Argh (n/t)

[uppityperson]

130. 1-800-helpme!

:rolf:

[pnwmom]

25. You ask the million dollar question.

And you're right -- the Dems were used to dealing with "normal" opponents -- not fullblown malignant narcissists, like our Decider-man. They trusted him to act with some degree of intelligence, sanity, and integrity, and that was their major mistake.

[Carolina]

163. sorry, but that's a load

The repukes showed their true, dastardly colors throughout Clinton's presidency and further by stealing the WH in 2000. They were not normal opponents and had not been since losing in 1992.

I knew we were doomed when the court stopped the Florida recount.
I knew Bush would get us in a war by any means necessary.
I do not excuse any Dems for their political cowardice especially when they ignored the sage words of Sen. Robert Byrd about IWR: why now, why the haste on the vote, why the rush to war?!

[Ravy]

16. Yes, I wish they had put additional provisions in to make it so

that Bush would have to come back for force approval. They tried, but failing to do so was the big mistake.

With a competent adminstration (that is the rub) the end result would have been Saddam in exile, no US invasion, removal of the sanctions on Iraq. Bush just wanted to pull the trigger.

Thanks for your additions.

:toast:

[pnwmom]

29. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I get tired of reading about all the 20/20 hindsight people around here.

[wtmusic]

37. "It would have happened anyway" is morally bankrupt

and has justified countless atrocities in the past.

[Carolina]

166. so then why vote

if it would have happened anyway, then the Dems should have sat back and let the GOP OWN IT COMPLETELY and SOLELY.

Aiding and abetting a crime is still a crime.

[pnwmom]

189. They couldn't stop the crime, but they tried to limit the damage.

And it certainly would have been worse if Bush had an IWR that allowed him to attack not just Iraq, but anywhere.

[pnwmom]

188. "It would have been even worse otherwise" is realistic. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

195. No, it is an excuse.

One used to justify the cowardice of the Dems in a time of crisis.

[Hippo_Tron]

49. There were no real contingencies in the IWR

Bush got exactly what he wanted when Biden-Lugar and the Levin Amendment were voted down. If there had been genuine contingencies you would have a valid argument. And we certainly wouldn't have had the military capacity to launch a war in Iran and Syria at the same time.

If I were Tom Daschle I would've refused to let the IWR in the form it was come to a vote. That way the blood could've all been on the GOP's hands.

[Marie26]

118. And risked losing their own seats in the Nov. election

Which I cynically think was the real reason that many Dems voted for the bill.

[Carolina]

165. exactly

political cowardice.

And some lost anyway while others -- namely HRC who wasn't even up for re-election and John Kerry who was in a safe seat with constituents who urged him to vote NO -- went along a la finger in the friggin wind!

[pnwmom]

190. So if they all voted against it, and lost even more seats in the election,

and Bush got his IWR that gave him a free hand to attack anywhere in the world -- would we be better off today?

[Marie26]

191. Yes.

Democrats had the Senate majority in 2002. If all Democrats had voted against the IWR, it wouldn't have passed.

[pnwmom]

192. No. By October 2002, it was abundantly clear that the Rethugs would be

taking the Senate in November. If we had voted en masse against the compromise IWR in October, then in January the new Rethug majority would have voted to approve Bush's preferred IWR, allowing him to attack anywhere in the world.

[Marie26]

193. So then it's on them, not us.

The Dems had the majority, and the power to stop the IWR when it came to the Senate. They didn't. That's on them. If the Republicans had to wait till they came to power, that would be more time for the WMD inspectors to work & conclude that there weren't any WMDs, more time for the UN & international pressure to stop the war. Bush needed the war ASAP, & the Dems gave it to him.

And IMO it's also a false assumption to think that a vote against the IWR would mean losing their seat. Feingold, Boxer, etc. didn't lose their seats & there was a lot of opposition to the war in Dem districts.

[pnwmom]

194. If Bush had an IWR that had allowed him to attack Iran, he would have by now.

And it would be cold comfort to know that it was "on them."

[Marie26]

198. I don't get the connection?

Iran? This was the Iraq War resolution of 2002, and yeah it would be some comfort if the Dems forcefully argued against it & voted against it.

[leftofthedial]

7. FUCK NO!!!!!

[McCamy Taylor]

8. In July, 2002 I wrote one of the first letters to the editor in the country against the Iraq War

under my physician name (not the same as my writer name). There was my letter and a handful of letters in the NYTs that got published after Sy Hersch wrote about Bush administration plans to go to war with Iraq.

So, NO I can say with 100% certainty that I would NOT have voted for any Bush-it war resolution with Iraq.

Some of us recognized this as a scam from the start

[Ravy]

26. I see the Sy Hersh article in May 2003 questioning the intelligence,

in the New Yorker. I can't find the article you are referring to.

[harmonicon]

9. simple: no

anyone who believed there were WMDs or that Iraq supported terrorism where seriously uninformed, or complete idiots. But none of that would have mattered. This was an illegal war of aggression. Wars of aggression and illegal and wrong. Every single person who voted for this war has blood on their hands. If they're Christians, I hope for their sake they're right about heaven and especially hell, so they can burn there forever.

[pnwmom]

20. It must be nice to be able to see things so simply.

I think it was much more complicated.

I think it would have been very difficult to be one of those Senators in October 2002 faced with this choice:

Either work with the Rethugs to approve a compromise IWR that would put at least SOME limit on what Bush could do, and set up some contingencies

OR

Vote with the Dem majority to defeat the IWR. Then watch helplessly in January when the new Rethug majority gives Bush a complete blank check IWR, allowing him to attack not only Iraq, but Syria, Iran, North Korea, and anywhere else in the world where he suspected terrorists.

Some of the Democrats decided to go with the first option and are being blamed because they didn't know Bush would defy the resolution and enter Iraq even without any WMD. But no one gives them credit for an IWR that limited him to Iraq only.

It would have been satisfying -- but for a very short time -- to watch the Democratic majority in October rise up and defeat the IWR en masse. But the Rethugs would inevitably have given him the IWR that he wanted and we'd probably be even worse off than we are today.

[Milo_Bloom]

21. This assumes a lot of things.

First, it assumes that if the Dems voted down the IWR, they would have lost.

In reality, the REASON they probably lost is because they voted for the IWR and progressives didn't turn out to support them at the polls.


Second, it assumes that they would have ended up with a fillibuster proof majority.


Finally, none of it explains the NO votes on the Levin amendment.

[pnwmom]

34. All any of the Dems could do at the time was make assumptions.

Bush's popularity post 9/11 was HUGE, and polls for months had shown that new Rethug majorities were about to be swept in. The Dems who were worried about that had good reason to be concerned.

The Dems fate was sealed long before the IWR vote. If they had gone against strong popular opinion (which was being manipulated by Colin Powell's UN presentation and Condi's mushroom cloud fear-mongering) and defeated the IWR, all they would have done is increased the margin of their DEFEAT.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Or do the right thing.

The IWR was at 50/50 popularity at the time of the vote, so it is UNTRUE to say there was "strong popular opinion".


This still doesn't answer the fillibuster proof part or the no vote on the Levin amendment.


They probably would have remained in office if they showed some strength... but they didn't and we paid for their mistake and now the war voters are paying for theirs at the polls.

[pnwmom]

75. You have no basis for your assumption that voting against the IWR would

have suddenly turned public opinion -- which was strongly favoring Bush and the Rethugs -- around into favoring the Democrats. Bush had been riding high in popularity ever since 9/11, and the Rethugs were poised to benefit in Jan. 2003.

On the other hand, I agree with you that the Dems made a serious miscalculation and that they shouldn't have trusted Bush to act honorably (in which case he would have followed the terms of the IWR and not attacked Iraq, since no WMD were ever found). My gut told me not to trust them, which is why I was one of the protesters out that fall and into the spring. But I wasn't one of the Congresspeople charged with the awful decision and being given the false classified briefings, and I don't find it easy to blame them. I don't know what I would have done in their shoes.

With regard to the fillibuster -- my entirely uninformed opinion (as is anyone's on this matter) is that if the Dems had voted en masse against the IWR, it would have handed Bush a major club to beat the Dems with, and he WOULD have had a filibuster proof majority. You obviously think otherwise.

[Milo_Bloom]

121. So much in here that simply isn't true.

"which was strongly favoring Bush and the Rethugs " That is not true. Public opinion was SPLIT 50/50 with for war against war. Bush had 62% approval ratings at the time (www.pollingreport.com) but approval ratings don't automatically translate into votes for congress and the senate. If you go and check out the elections held in November of 2001 when Bush had 80% approval ratings, they were SURPRISE democratic victories in RED STATES.


However, I find the reasoning completely faulty as well. You don't vote for a war even though there is no reason for it, out of fear of what someone else may do sometime later and yes, the IWR was a vote for war on its face. Why? Because by voting for a war, you are angering your base, who is your ONLY shot at staying in office. Vote for the war and you guarantee yourself a one way ticket out of washington... the GOP takes over and can rewrite whatever resolution you voted for anyway.

But, they voted for the war against the Levin Amendment which is why Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Edwards are getting what they deserve today... embarassing defeats at the hands of the voters

[Carolina]

170. But they would have gone

down STANDING UP for what was right.

The GOP would own this disastrous crime completely and solely.

The Dems would have been vindicated and likely would have won in 2004 and even more in 2006.

Instead they compromised on death and destruction and lost again and again...

[ngant17]

64. A resolute "no", that's a no-brainer for anyone normal person

And anyone callous enough to put their political fortunes and ambitions ahead of the lives of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, the ones who were going to be killed in the crossfires of an illegal and unjustified IWR, these 'dead-enders' needed to be booted out of public office the next day, Dem or Repug or Independent.

[wtmusic]

47. It is nice.

1) Pre-emptive war is illegal.

2) The legislature provides an important check of the chief executive which it should never, under any circumstances, abandon.

Had our reps abided by these two simple tenets a million more people would be alive today.

[Carolina]

171. Touche!

And now they want to say: they're sorry or if they had known then what they know now...

Spare me such rubbish. We, many of the people, knew.

[SOS]

113. There were no binding conditions in the 10/2002 version.

None, whatsoever.

"a compromise IWR that would put at least SOME limit on what Bush could do, and set up some contingencies "

There were no limits and no contingencies. Absolutely none.

Sec 2 "supported the efforts of the President" blah blah blah.

Sec 3 gave Bush 100% sole authority to use military force as "he determines".

A blank check that could not possibly have been worse.

[Carolina]

168. I totally agree

I saw through the sham in 2002 and even predicted when theft 200 happened that we would be in a war and this is why I cannot abide any of the aiders and abetters of this crime who now want to be president.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Can we stop telling some of these lies?

"The IWR vote was what put the inspectors back into Iraq."

No. Iraq agreed to return of the inspectors BEFORE the IWR Vote (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/index.html)


'There may have been some contradictory evidence *at the time of the vote* that some of the Congress may or may not have been privy to"

SOME? Scott Ritter, a previous weapons inspector, went public in September of 2002 stating unequivocally that there were NO WMD'S in Iraq. There was TONS of evidence that unless he a different source of WMD, anything we sold him in the 80's would have long since DEGRADED, especially under conditions he could have kept them.


However, even if everything you claimed was true, it doesn't explain the NO vote on the Levin Amendment, which would have required bush to come back to congress BEFORE committing troops.

[Ravy]

30. From your article:

"The timing of Iraq's letter coincides with a major push by the Bush administration to draft a new, tougher U.N. resolution ordering weapons inspectors back into Iraq on a tight deadline -- and threatening the use of military force if Saddam does not comply. "

Do you think that after 3 years Iraq's letter was a coincidence, or do you think that the IWR pressure brought them to the conclusion that things were getting serious?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. But it happened BEFORE the IWR vote.

So the IWR vote was not NECESSARY to get the inspectors in.


This is the lie so often told. The IWR got the inspectors in or senators/congresspeople claim they voted yes on IWR to "get the inspectors in", but that was going to happen anyway, as per an agreement between Iraq and UN that happened 3 WEEKS BEFORE THE VOTE.

[Ravy]

42. But the UN did not put them in until after.

So, obviously Saddam's letter was not enough.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Things don't happen overnight.

The reality is that the IWR had NOTHING to do with getting inspectors into the country and saying it did is a blatant lie that is completely contradictory to the facts.

[karynnj]

95. There was not concensus that Saddam would allow invasive

inspections everywhere with no prior notification - the basic need for serious inspections.

Bush actually was clearly gearing up for an invasion in summer 2002. The uproar of the Democrats that he needed to go to Congress (he was saying he could go under the 2001 terrorism resolution - which was far broader) and to the UN probably delayed the invasion. There had been no inspections for 4 years and even people like Valerie Plame said she couldn't rule out there being WMD. (Some intelligence being distorted means that it does not prove that there were WMD, but it also did not rule out the existence - if you look at speeches, for yeses and nos, most neither state there are WMD or state that they are not there.)

The problem the Senators and Congressmen faced was that thanks to some Democrats, like Leiberman and Gephardt, they could not pass a better resolution - such as Biden/Lugar. But, even Biden/Lugar, which more people would have voted for, would have ended with the same signing statement and very likely the same result. The ironic thing is that many Democrats who did vote for the IWR were on record against the initial version of the IWR. They worked hard to get the worst language out. At that point, they may not have seen that although they were negotiating in good faith, Bush wasn't. The recent Kyl/Leiberman, though not a war authorization, was similar in being totally unacceptable in the initial form.

I disagree with the definition of the decision matrix. The IWR is not equivilent to the decision to invade. The real decision matrix for Congress people was more complex and more political. In reality, whether there was war or not was totally Bush's decision - with or without the passage of a resolution. Their decision was one of having their names attached if Bush attacked without it being a last resort (making it morally wrong), even though that is what he promised. The other side would have been that a large part of the Democratic party would appear to not support a bipartisan foreign policy in the "dangerous post 911 times.

For some the pain of having made the wrong decision is very clear - Kerry and Harkin are the first two that come to mind. But, it diminishes Bush's responsibility when people here blame going to war on the IWR. In fact, there was FAR LESS reason to feel war was justified in March 2003, than to feel that war might be justified if all else failed was in October, 2002.

[wtmusic]

101. There was no UN resolution which gave the green light for a unilateral

invasion of Iraq. UNSCR 1441 warned of "serious consequences", but that resolution is a UN document. The only circumstances under which a country can invade unilaterally is if they are under the threat of "armed attack" (UN Charter), and we weren't. Analogously, do you have the right to act as a cop, on your own interpretation of US law? Of course not -- that's known as vigilanteism. Bush took international law into his own hands to disastrous result.

Under US law, thanks to the War Powers Act it wasn't at all "totally Bush's decision". Quite simply, he needs congressional approval to start a war. Whether Bush said he had justification or not, he pushed hard for the IWR for the very reason he needed it. It was a lack of political fortitude which handed it to him.

[wtmusic]

deleted

[ProSense]

108. He needed Congressional approval under the IWR too, but

he lied. Not that lying is why the war criminal invaded, he would have done it anyway. Think Clinton.

[wtmusic]

109. Not buying any "would have" arguments

You can justify any atrocity on the face of the planet with them. And all the IWR required was Bush's judgement, not congressional approval, to invade Iraq.

[ProSense]

112. The IWR forced him to lie and manipulate the evidence. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

126. Not true. It was a declaration of war on its face.

[ProSense]

128. No

it wasn't. I'm sure this could go on all day, but here is a question.

[Milo_Bloom]

146. YES IT WAS... READ IT!!!

From the resolution:

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ..."

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security..."







"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "



That is, ON ITS FACE, a war resolution with no pre-conditions. It names Iraq a threat to the US, lays out the use of force authorized by the UN and then gives the president authority to use the Armed Forces to deal with the threat and to enforce the resolutions.

[ProSense]

149. No, you're wrong

That is, ON ITS FACE, a war resolution with no pre-conditions. It names Iraq a threat to the US, lays out the use of force authorized by the UN and then gives the president authority to use the Armed Forces to deal with the threat and to enforce the resolutions.

Bush didn't enforce the U.N. resolution, the U.N never authorized the use of force and Bush lied to Congress to unilaterally invade Iraq.

[Milo_Bloom]

153. You obviously are not reading it.

"Bush didn't enforce the U.N. resolution, the U.N never authorized the use of force and Bush lied to Congress to unilaterally invade Iraq. "


From the resolution:

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ..."

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security..."


There it is in black and white from the resolution. No lies needed to be told, because it was IN THE RESOLUTION!

[ProSense]

157. Yes, I am

and subsequent relevant resolutions

Bush didn't.

You are not reading, you are cherry picking!

[Milo_Bloom]

186. Do you understand the meaning of "and" in this context?

It means IN ADDITION TOO. Not a requirement.

The IWR is a vote for war on its face. To say otherwise is a LIE.

[Milo_Bloom]

111. No he didn't. That is another lie that is told.

The IWR required NO congressional approval.

In fact, it was a war resolution ON ITS FACE, as it declared Iraq a threat to the US and then gave authority to deal with the threat, with NO PRE-CONDITIONS at all.

[SOS]

115. The IWR was the Congressional approval.

There was no additional approval required in the text of the AuMF.

[ProSense]

116. Not the case. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

125. Yes, EXACTLY the case...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/2002100...

From the resolution:

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ..."

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security..."







"(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "



That is, ON ITS FACE, a war resolution with no pre-conditions. It names Iraq a threat to the US, lays out the use of force authorized by the UN and then gives the president authority to use the Armed Forces to deal with the threat and to enforce the resolutions.

[SOS]

137. Yes it was

There was not one legally binding condition.
Not one.

Congress "supported the efforts of the President" in Sec. 2, which is empty rhetoric. There were no efforts and "support" is not a condition.

In Sec 3 Bush is given 100% sole authority, without even one condition to use the Armed Forces of the United States as "he determines" to attack Iraq.

The word "inspections" isn't even in the law.

[karynnj]

134. i know that -Bush, Blair and the President of Spain met and decided

not to go to the UN for the vote - because they would lose. This was well AFTER the vote. The fact is that almost every President from Kennedy through Clinton, committed troops somewhere without authorization.

Here Bush did not follow the steps he promised. I do think that he in his decision in March 2003, broke international law and started an immoral war. The fact is that no objective person would agree that the conditions - to be interpreted by the President - were met. They weren't. I agree that the Congress should have refused to vote on a resolution until they could do it after the election. Bush had the troops in the Gulf and he was flying bombing missions in the no fly zone. Are you telling me that Bush could not (as the DSM allude to) create a provocation? If they shot at one of our planes, which they routinely did - after all we were hostile, he could declare our troops in danger and attack.

I am not saying that the vote was right - I said it was wrong. But, what they are quilty of - and what they themselves in some cases are dealing with is that whatever their motive their name is there. (the sad thing is that this punishes those who are more decent and honorable more than those who are less so.)

[wtmusic]

158. Agree with you there.

The candidates are being penalized more than the president is. Hopefully that will change too.

No doubt Bush could have created a provocation (as he is attempting to do this very minute with Iran). The so-called "no fly zone" was an American invention anyway and had no international legitimacy, so he has been pretty good at getting away with doing whatever he pleases. But that doesn't imply we shouldn't be doing everything in our power to prevent it.

[karynnj]

161. Britain and the US oversaw the no fly zone

I thought it had come out of the 1991 war and that it was part of the end of the war. It existed through the entire Clinton Presidency as well. As to the candidates, it is for the most part only the Democrats who feel the vote was wrong - even among people who now think that we shouldn't have gone to war.

[wtmusic]

197. Yes the no-fly zone was a Clinton concoction

as were sanctions (which as the result of American armtwisting did receive a UN imprimatur). The biggest black eyes on his presidency.

The Republicans who think we shouldn't have gone to war oppose it on strategic grounds, not moral. They think it was just a result of botched planning and failed leadership, when there is no strategy astute enough, no army large enough to make that war succeed. It really is Vietnam all over again.

Thrice armed are they who hath their quarrel just.

[redqueen]

133. THANK YOU!

Unfrickinreal seeing some of this crap parroted here as if it were factual.

Sickening, really.

[ProSense]

135. They were not let into Iraq until early November and the U.N. resolution

which was part of the IWR requirement:

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.
Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

link

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

link

[Milo_Bloom]

148. Because things don't happen overnight... Stop telling the lie...

That the IWR had ANYTHING to do with inspections. It didn't. It was a declaration of war on its face.

[ProSense]

151. The U.N. resolution wasn't passed until November

November 8, 2002

The UN Council votes unanimously for resolution 1441, the 17th Iraq disarmament resolution passed by the council, calling for immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq. The resolution also demands that Iraq declare all weapons of mass destruction to the council, and account for its known chemical weapons material stockpiles.

There were no inspectors in Iraq for four years. You're right, that's not overnight.

[Milo_Bloom]

156. Which is entirely BESIDES THE POINT.

Iraq agreed to the return of the inspectors BEFORE the IWR vote. (as proven in previous post)

To say the IWR vote had anything to do with inspections is a lie.

[Emit]

15. I would've voted NO

And this might seem wierd, but, it wasn't necessarily related to whether Saddam had WDM. It had more to do with seeing right through Bush's bullshit -- something just felt wierd about his drumbeat to war. Surreal, almost. And Fox News had a lot to do with my awakening, actually. I can almost remember specifically that feeling I had. I was never a Fox News watcher, having lived without cable for a long time. I was at my sister's house visiting for a weekend and she had Fox blaring. A bunch of kids were running around the house in and out of the pool, and I was not really able to watch a full program. But every damned time I walked passed that teevee I would pause, get sucked in with the drama and action, feel tense and hypnotized -- bin Laden this, bin Laden that, Saddam this, Saddam that, Bush this, Bush that. And then there was Bush himself. "Who could trust him?" I'd ask. It was strange to me. And I saw it. I felt it. I saw the power of this. I felt the draw -- the desire of Bush & Co. for this unnecessary war. I knew we were being conned. I called his bullshit back then, the summer before Bush invaded.

[Skittles]

17. not only no but HELL FUCKING NO

anyone who could not see that bush and cheney were hell bent on invading Iraq were just fucking S T U P I D - which is why, in good conscience, I CANNOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR IWR.

[Carolina]

173. Ditto, Skittles

I remember meeting both John Kerry and John Edwards at a Dem function here in SC in the summer of 2002. Because the war drumbeats were already blaring on TV, a friend and I begged them then not to let Bush go to war against Iraq. I'll never forget JK saying to my face what a threat Saddam was.

I looked at my friend and we just shook our heads in amazement saying: we're gonna lose AGAIN. We saw the fallacy and bullshit then.

Now HRC wants her cake and eat it too. Wants us to trust her experience. Fuck that. Poor judgment and political cowardice on an issue of war, death and destruction = unfit to lead!

[XemaSab]

18. At the time I thought it was a shitty idea.

And you know, I was right. :(

[Alexander]

22. I wrote Sens. Dodd and Lieberman asking for a NO vote, so.....no.

CT's districts were getting redrawn after it lost a Congressional seat and Jim Maloney was in a tight election with Nancy Johnson.

I wrote Maloney asking him to vote no. He wrote back promptly and voted no. Dodd e-mailed me back a month or so later and voted yes. Lieberman took almost a year to e-mail me back, and we know how that went.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. I would have voted no, even if Saddam did have WMD.

Pre-emptive war is illegal and immoral.

The politicians who voted for the war knew that there was no compelling reason to go to war but voted for it anyway for purely political reasons. To show that they were "tough" and "patriotic".

Spare me the nonsense that they "didn't know" that Bush wasn't going to war with, or without, their votes. If that was even true, that blatant ignorance should disqualify them from any public office other than janitor. The "I was fooled" defense of their votes is equal, in my eyes, to the "good Germans" who never "knew" what was going on during Hitler's regime.

23 other senators did vote against it.

They were collaborators in launching an immoral and illegal war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, maimed many more, and displaced over 2 million. They have blood on their hands.

[The Traveler]

27. Normally in these situations

one backs the President's play ... which at this point was advertised as providing leverage when dealing with the UN and provoking the re-introduction of the inspection process. What was abnormal about the situation was, of course, the abnormal psychology of the fuck tards running the executive branch at the time.

There could have been a way of rattling swords without giving these dipshits unfettered access to the armory and barracks. That is where the vote really went awry ... there were not enough provisions written in for review, oversight, checking, balancing. Of course, once the rethugs took the majority it is unclear any of that would have helped.

The whole thing is a fucking mess. I have come to realize that there are no right answers to this question, because it is the wrong question. One right question is how does a loyal opposition party deal when a would be Calligula is installed by the judiciary branch as Commander in Chief?

[donheld]

28. Hell NO!

[FrenchieCat]

31. I was marching......

and holding up signs, and praying someone would pay attention to the millions of us....but only a few saw us.

Few elected officials would have been caught dead at an anti-war rally, except for a few:

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[Ravy]

38. Yah, no doubt Obama nailed it.

Being honest with you though, as I was in the OP, I didn't see it coming.

[Carolina]

174. Touche

he showed political courage and leadership on the biggest issue of all WAR!

[trashcanistanista]

33. I knew they were lying when the contracts to rebuild

went to Haliburton. At the time I believed they wanted to destroy Iraq so that Bushes cronies could get govt.money. I believed Sen. Byrd. I knew it was going to be a disaster. I knew they had targeted the wrong country as Iraq had been under sanctions and many citizens were impoverished. I knew Sadam was getting all of the oil for food money and keeping it from the people. This I knew prior to the IWR. Knowing little, but I would have voted no. I never connected Iraq to 911 despite the BS. I am not a politician or a historian, just a citizen who gets news from the internet and Link TV.

[wtmusic]

35. You think it's ok to kill people just "in case" they're a threat?

That's the problem in a nutshell. A million people in Iraq have died needlessly because of that attitude. :grr:

[Ravy]

46. If the weapons inspectors had discovered that Saddam

was making/acquiring biological or nuclear weaponry in violation of the UN Resolutions, then yes, I think we should have invaded.

That wasn't what happened, of course.

[wtmusic]

48. Why would you turn over warmaking powers to the president alone

under any circumstances? Why was that necessary?

[Ravy]

51. I don't think it was necessary.

But the efforts to put limits on it were unsuccessful, so what was left was what passed.

So the choice boiled down to do something and trust the President, or do nothing. We now know what the right answer was, but I don't think it was as clear then.

[wtmusic]

60. It was crystal clear then.

Why was any resolution necessary? If WMDs had been discovered Congress would have moved to approve force at that time.

No, Congress passed IWR because they failed the political courage test. They thought they would be perceived as weak, and they caved. AFAIC they all have blood on their hands.

[Ravy]

63. I don't think the UN would have put in inspectors without it.

Sure, a few weeks before it passed Saddam offed up letting inspectors back in, but I think it took the US determination to get the ball rolling on the inspectors.

The horror was that the IWR itself was working perfectly... until the invasion. It was Congress's trust in Bush, and Bush's lack of brains/morals/truthfulness that went amiss.

[wtmusic]

67. Then the inspectors should not have gone in

It is not our position in the world to make decisions on behalf of a global body. There is a UN for a reason and that reason is to represent the world, not just the US. The US stepped outside its jurisdiction and the result was disaster.

So the IWR was not "working perfectly" at all, unless you are adopting the neocon standpoint. It was a classic breakdown of the rule of law.

[Ravy]

71. No, the neocons wanted to invade, period.

I am saying that the IWR, up to the point of the actual invasion, allowed weapons inspectors back into the county, allowed US reconnissance flights, led to the distruction of some missles that were technically in violation of the peace treaty, and had Saddam looking for other countries to have him in exile. Those were good things.

Had Bush not invaded, and the weapons inspectors cleared Iraq of any violations in the resolutions, sanctions could have been lifted and the world would be a happier and safer place. *cue birds chirping*

[wtmusic]

78. How do those good things offset the disaster that unfolded afterwards?

I suppose you could argue that Bush would negate the War Powers Act, seize dictatorial powers, and invade anyway, but it doesn't add up. Bush wanting the IWR badly = Bush needing the IWR badly. The IWR enabled the war.

If you give a child the keys to your car you can argue how mature the child is, how unlikely they are to try and drive away, etc. until you are blue in the face -- but it comes down to responsibility. 296 congressman and 77 senators shirked their responsibility.

[Carolina]

175. they proved that they were weak!

[AndyTiedye]

39. NO!

We were screaming it in the streets at the top of our lungs.
NO!!!

[ConsAreLiars]

40. Only an absolute coward, an absolute idiot, or someone so isolated from reality as to be certifiable

would have believed that shit. Unfortunately, the "isolated from reality" phrase can easily be replaced by "inside the beltway." Of course, those outside the beltway who are so stupid as to believe that the Corporate Media is going to tell them anything resembling the truth and too lazy to do a little fact-checking were played for the fools they were trained to be.

I watched that shameful performance by Powell, and knew that every claim he made was a documented lie. No surprise - he tried to cover up My Lai, and had made his money by serving as a reliable "house boy" for his masters for decades. Why were so many Democratic Party representatives less informed than I was? I suspect they were more afraid of telling the truth or even learning it than of appearing as "weak" and opportunistic as history as proven them to be.

[Ravy]

43. As I mentioned in my OP, Powell's performance was well after that vote.

There were many people against action by then. One could easily see that Bush was spoiling for war.

[Skittles]

56. ANYONE who was paying attention knew WHEN THEY STOLE THE ELECTION

they were ITCHING TO INVADE IRAQ

[Ravy]

68. I paid lots of attention when they stole the election.

Unfortunately, I was asleep on the Iraq part until the weapons inspectors started reporting back and the administration went on their lie at all costs to go to war crap.

[Skittles]

79. that PNAC shit had it all spelled out

our dear departed KEPHRA pointed that out to me

[Carolina]

176. Right on again, Skittles

PNAC spelled it out!

[ConsAreLiars]

62. The same lies Powell repeated were a part of that bogus NIE.

Anyone who bought that sack of shit was an idiot, a coward, or an opportunist. Or maybe some combination. A traitor to the American people, at the very least. 90% of the planet knew that it was a pack of lies and that mass murder would be the only outcome. Powell repeated that same crap later, but it was still a pack of lies.

As for your contention that any normal human being with any claim to being rational actually believed that Iraq was about launch war against the US, well, what kind of fool (OMFG, how much cowardice and ignorance does that require?) could possibly believe that?

[Ravy]

69. Where did I contend that?

[ConsAreLiars]

80. In your apologetics in the OP

"The risk of inaction *at that point in time* is another attack on US soil."

What utter murderous crap.

(edit to fix keyboard mishap)

[Skittles]

55. you speak for me, CAL

I can't take it I tell you - I don't think a lot of DUers understand just what a piece of absolute SHIT IWR was and that anyone who supported it SERIOUSLY DAMANGED THEIR CREDIBILITY

[ProSense]

105. "Only an absolute coward, an absolute idiot, or someone so isolated from reality..."

Obama SmackDown Series: Smacks down Edwards on Iraq

[warren pease]

136. Yup, those are the possibilities...

Clinton says she was fooled by the Commander Guy into voting yea. Obama says he wouldn't have voted for it, but he did vote against the Kerry bill to get out in 2006.

So the question is, in Clinton's case, how stupid do you have to be to be duped by the stupidest man to ever occupy the Oval Office? How many millions of people weren't fooled by this imbecile and marched in the streets all over the world to protest the inevitable?

And poor Hillary was just so overwhelmed by the force of Bush's rhetoric, character and logic that she was blinded by the light?

Nonsense.

wp

[Hippo_Tron]

45. I was 15 at the time, but...

If there is one thing I knew it was that Bush wanted war. Listening to his speeches I knew that right or wrong, we would be in Iraq eventually.

Given my greater understanding of politics now, I would have voted No and here is why.

Bush was not willing to give an inch to congressional demands and used the upcoming election to intimidate the Democrats into giving him everything that he wanted. Biden-Lugar had slightly stronger wording but still gave him unilateral authority if necessary and he wouldn't even settle for that.

Additionally, he was making claims at the time that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda which pretty much every expert knew was complete bullshit. As far as the WMD goes, there was a hearing where Ted Kennedy was doing a great job of grilling Rummy to tell him just exactly where those WMD were. Certainly that's not conclusive proof that there were no WMD, but cause for doubt.

WMD or not, it was obvious that Bush was being disingenuous about threatening military force to ultimately not have to use military force. Regime change was the goal, not disarming Saddam.

Carl Levin introduced an amendment that would have changed the wording to give Bush Congress' full support to go to the UN and build a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. But when he wanted war authorization he would have to come back to congress and show that he had built that coalition and gotten the UN on board. I would have voted for this amendment. Once the amendment failed I would've voted Nea on the IWR. If I were in Tom Daschle's place I would've refused to let it go to the floor until after the election. It may have hurt the party more in the midterms, but in the long run it would've really helped.

[wtmusic]

52. Hearing "axis of evil" at the 2002 SOTU was my WTF moment

From that point on I knew we were being set up.

[Skittles]

59. you were RIGHT ON, Hippo

now how is it a 15 year old figured it out but people like HRC and Edwards did NOT? See - my theory all along has been THEY KNEW IT WAS CRAP but THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A CAKEWALK. Anyone who voted for IWR - their credibility was in tatters after that.

[Ravy]

66. You honestly think that Clinton and Edwards thought they

would find nothing and invade anyway?

Sorry, I just can't buy that. I can believe that they thought they would find something and invade with a cakewalk. I can also believe that they thought they would find nothing and then we would not invade.

[Skittles]

77. YES

it's the only reason that MAKES SENSE. If a 15 year old knew it - if I KNEW it and countless others knew it was bullshit I have to believe THEY KNEW IT WAS CRAP TOO. They voted their CAREERS (they THOUGHT) over the interests of America - SOMETHING KUCINICH DID NOT DO. They did not have to do it BUT THEY DID. And they will FOREVER have blood on their hands because of their dreadful miscalculation.

[karynnj]

96. So, at 15 you KNEW there were no WMD, even though Valerie Plame did not know?

[wtmusic]

103. And the presence of WMDs would have made it OK for the US

to invade Iraq unilaterally? Careful, your ethnocentricity is showing.

[karynnj]

131. No it would not - nor did I say it would

[Skittles]

187. the 15 yr old was another poster

of course we had no proof but the fact that THE BASTARDS STOLE THE ELECTION should have been the first clue these guys were LYING OUT THEIR ASS. It was just all to obvious to ANYONE WHO WAS PAYING ATTENTION.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. The thing is being 15, I wasn't even sure it was a bad idea

I hadn't really formed my political views at that point, so I listened to the right wingers without nearly as much skepticism as I should have.

But one thing was clear and that was that the right wingers as well as the administration were selling us a war. They were bloodthursty and wanted a war and wanted to get rid of Saddam. I wasn't entirely sure they were wrong, but it was obvious that, that was their agenda. Anybody who uses the "I gave Bush the big stick to speak softly" defense is either lying or stupid.

[Skittles]

85. EXACTLY

IT WAS SO F***ING OBVIOUS that when people say now, gee, I WAS MISLED or I WAS LIED TO - I cannot buy it - YOU HAD TO BE BLIND AND ILLITERATE NOT TO KNOW IT.

[leftchick]

152. or just plain complicit

I see an awful lot of cheney neoconishness in ms. clinton. Obama is an opportunist.

[Carolina]

177. not to mention

so what if there had been WMDs.

India has them. Pakistan has them. North Korea has them. And no one dares attack them because the best defense is a strong OFFENSE.

To anyone listening then, the lie was spelled out by the fact that the neocons said in one breath Iraq was an imminent threat and in another that the war would be a cakewalk.

Made no sense then and is totally inexcusable now.

[Skittles]

185. good point, Carolina

the thing is - it stunk all the way around - there was not one single reason to vote for IWR unless you were STUPID or COMPLICIT. I detest the way so many DUers are able to overlook the WORST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER EVER FOR AMERICA.

[karynnj]

99. The Democrats raised an uproar over the summer of 2002

they argued that Bush needed both the UN and Congress. Bush was not convinced he needed either. Many Bush critics considered it a victory that he agreed to go to the UN - and he said that he needed to show that he had the support of Congress to have enough leverage at the UN.

The Democrats were out played on this. Bush would have invaded had they done nothing in the summer. In reality, Bush was going to get a resolution and he would have used it - no matter what provisions were in it - to go to war. (In fact, Bush did not need any Democrats beyond the ones he was known to have from the beginning. ) This doesn't make the IWR right - but it is not as simple as you make out either.

The question is how could Congress stop Bush - when the constitution itself gives him the ability to attack if there is an imminent danger. (With the troops in the Gulf, a Gulf of Tonkien type "provcation" is easy to manufactor.)

[TexasProgresive]

86. Very good analysis

and you are what now, 22? I am impressed. Keep thinking. You and other bright young turks give this boomer hope.

[baby_mouse]

53. I would have voted NO and remember being FAIRLY VOCAL ABOUT IT AT THE TIME

In fact, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WERE, IF YOU RECALL.

[Ravy]

58. I really don't recall.

I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. I woke up when we started catching them in their little lies afterwards.

[Hekate]

57. I took to the streets. Does that answer your question?

There was an enormous amount of evidence that contradicted the Bush administration's assertions. I chose to believe that.

Hekate

[EFerrari]

93. We were marching in L.A. and I remember cussing out Powell

while he was embarrassing us all at the U.N.

[Hekate]

120. It's how I came to DU. Little Santa Barbara was having marches every weekend & ....

...not only was our local tv station mostly failing to notice the hundreds, then thousands, of us out there, but for all I was reading and seeing in the national media we could have been the only ones in the entire country who were protesting the sons of bitches. It was driving me crazy, because I knew that simply didn't make any sense.

Finally a friend who was posting here as MaRadix told me about DU and insisted that if I wanted to know what was really going on I should drop on by.

So here I am.

Hekate

[Hissyspit]

70. No. Knew it was all crap well before Colin Powell's additional crap.

Told my students, many if not most who are active-duty members of the U.S. military, my beliefs well before Dec. 2002.

The fact that Bush even STARTED with the Iraq rhetoric in the summer of 2002 was a big tip-off that it was crap.

[bridgit]

72. My IWR would have been laced up with provisions so gooey that any president would have got...

sticky fingers just touching it; and I would have *never* handed the awesome, lethal power of The Armed Forces of the United States of America to so slight a group of wispy war tinkers (that's right 'tinkers') led by g.w. bush...never-ever!!

[Ravy]

73. If there is any bright spot..

.. it should be clear that that can never happen again.

[bridgit]

81. never! this admin has provided one of the strangest services to America in the end...

they have demonstrated beyond a shadow the greatest fallacy America has to offer and it was, apparently, right there all along just staring us in the face between all the lofty poetries like freedom & liberty for all till these odd thinkers ran in there and captured mighty advantage with what are said now to be the very words that were meant to protect us all and BAM! nee-ner, nee-ner we can't do nothing cause he's in there and he's "the decider", Oy!

impeachment is off the table!?! congress cut some deal with this bush person in advance?!?

if this junta cannot be impeached by way of their crimes & deeds? then impeachment is little more than an iunderstanding within Marquess de Queensberry playbooks, and not a matter The Constitution http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring03/Bueneventura/rules.htm

[riverdeep]

89. I'm sure that's what people were saying about the Gulf of Tonkin.

Unfortunately, it'll happen again. Hell, it almost happened with Iran a month ago. Don't give the human race so much credit, history shows we don't deserve it. We're easily malleable to come to the supposed defense of the tribe. Whether such defense is really defense or offense, the survivors ask those questions, while the warmongers make their newfound investments.

[Ravy]

74. I have to go to bed. Long flight tomorrow.

Hope you don't think less of me for my bit of honesty and an attempt to interject some real discussion in GD.

Thanks to all who responded. I learned a lot.

[bridgit]

82. safe travels...

:hi:

[Lasher]

84. Right wing myth: Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs

I would only have voted No if I was convinced that Saddam Hussein had no WMD. I don't think anyone at the time really thought that.

But in 2001 Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor told us that Iraq had a decimated military, no "significant capabilities" regarding WMD, and was so feeble that it couldn't even threaten the countries around it with conventional military power.

He (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. - Colin Powell 02/24/01

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. - Condoleezza Rice 07/29/01

Video clip here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

U.S. military and political officials were told by experts at a January 2001 conference that "Iraq's nuclear weapons program (didn't exist) because (the Iraqi government) had dismantled it." They were also told if there were chemical or biological weapons in Iraq at that time, "they were negligible in quantity and militarily meaningless."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=2616092&mesg_id=2616092

Senator Byrd for one knew Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US and said so at the time.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6685638827682629217&q=senator+byrd+iraq+war+resolution&total=32&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

[MadHound]

87. Then you too would have been suckered by Buschco

Frankly I think that anybody suckered by Bushco doesn't deserve the office that they're in or the one that they're aspiring to. It either means that you're either too stupid, gullible or malleable to hold higher office.

Let's go back to that vote. The majority of Americans, 68%, wanted to wait for the inspectors to finish their job before we did anything, including vote on the IWR. Millions of people, both around the country and around the world were out on the streets stating NO emphatically. Messages to Senators and Representatives were running 268-1 against the IWR. If you are going to fulfill your basic Constitutional duty of representing the will of the majority of people in your district, then a NO vote should have been a no-brainer. Instead, for personal political reasons, or perhaps simple stupidity, every single candidate in this race, excepting for Kucinich, voted for the IWR.

Sorry, but that is a vote that weighs heavily against those who voted. Like I said, it means that you're either too stupid, or too morally corrupt to hold the highest office in the land.

[Marie26]

181. Except Obama. nt

[riverdeep]

88. No.

The IWR was fundamentally trying to make a crisis situation out of a possible long-term threat, at worst. There was absolutely no verified evidence that those who attacked us had connections to Iraq, in spite of Cheney's blatant lie that there were, that he then later lied again in saying he never proposed such a connection (it's on tape that he did).

It's that simple- is this an immediate threat- even if there are WMDs (which unfiltered reports were saying no). The answer was no. Lots of nations have WMDs. Using them against the US, directly or indirectly, is a whole different matter. Craven political calculations of how this will affect my reelection wouldn't have entered into it. It's just too important, and I couldn't live with that vote.

I can see why you're confused because people like Bill Clinton are trying hard to revise history to apologize for his wife's vote. At least Edward's eventually apologized, although I sure as hell wish he had the foresight of Obama in the first place.

In short, I knew it was wrong, at the time. Even before I found out about PNAC. I'm not especially blessed with keen intellect. Just a healthy skepticism, especially about Republicans and war. I kept asking myself, 'Why are people falling for this? Why are they looking at Iraq of all places? Hell, Israel stood in defiance of UN resolutions as well, let's go after them.'

edit: for spelling

[leftchick]

90. what did Iraq have to do with attacks on US soil?

wtf? That is ridiculous and fuck NO! Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and or integrity voted NO!

Read this....

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11954


<snip>

Clinton sold out 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention a couple trillion of your and your childrens' money, for political advantage in 2002 -- as a safe cushion, that is, for 2008. It was as simple as that: others' lives and the U.S. Treasury for her shot at the White House.

The Democratic base knows it and independents know it. Hers was a calculated exchange, as cold-blooded, impersonal and politically clinical as they come. And now the electorate is reciprocating. There would have been no "Obama phenomenon" for Hillary to suffer without it. The same goes for John Edwards.

There's not a soul alive who believes that any member of Congress honestly believed that Iraq was a grave threat to national security, one in need of a military intervention that virtually every Middle East expert said would blow up in our faces. I'm no expert and I knew better -- how could a United States senator not have known?

It was just pure politics: Republicans wanting to capitalize on hypernationalistic gung-hoism and a grotesquely large segment of gutless Democrats not wanting to be left behind.

Clinton is now paying for it, Edwards is paying for it, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have already paid for it. Simple as that.

[wtmusic]

100. I'm amazed we're still forced to respond to that talking point

but thanks anyway. It's a dirty job... ;-)

[leftchick]

164. it totally usurps the OP

it is an idiotic statement that only neocons and wingers repeat. Strange to see it here.

[Carolina]

178. TOUCHE!

So true and I am so glad. As I said upthread, I met Edwards and Kerry in the summer of 2002 when the neocons with the M$M were already beating the Iraq war drums. At a Dem function, a friend and I begged JE and JK NOT to let Bush go to war against Iraq. But both were dismissive saying what a threat Saddam was. Rubbish.

I held my nose and voted for them (what choice did I have) in 2004 but I'll be damned if I'll vote for HRC or JE now. Political cowardice and poor judgment then = UNFIT to lead now!

[Tesha]

91. "No", of course. Any idiot who wasn't playing politics would have. (NT)

[mmonk]

92. I was aware that Iraq had no capability or was less likely

to have any advanced capability of striking and doing harm to the United States, a country of 300 million inhabitants with the most powerful military probably in human history armed with the most destructive firepower in the world. I knew a country that pathetically could only fire a few scud missiles in the first gulf war, a country with now no air force or navy, would not be likely to do us harm. But most importantly, before the invasion, I knew of the neoconservative movement (PNAC). It all spells that no, I would not have voted for the invasion. I still hold, politicians that did so, did so for political expediency with memories of the easy whooping of the First Gulf War and it's popularity still in their memory banks.

[sendero]

94. Come on..

... I would not have voted for it under any circumstance.

The fact is simple: when someone goes completely over-the-top non-linear to sell you on something, any sane intelligent person is given pause.

Bush made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the Iraq invasion was based on trumped up bullshit, virtually every single point he made in the leadup was over-the-top exaggeration and only people too stupid to run a 7-11 could fail to see that.

Any politician that comes up with the "what I knew then" argument is a liar or a patsy.

I've learned to forgive those who admit their mistake, because a lot of politicians I basically respect voted for the IWR. They did so thinking they had no choice politically, and hoping the war would be over in a couple months as we were being assured at the time.

Those who cling to the "I did the right thing" argument can kiss my ass, they are liars.

[HughBeaumont]

97. Sorry, I don't give a liar, cheater and thief ANY quarter or confidence.

The Failure Fuhrer should be given a prison sentence, not carte blanche. It's gotta be common knowledge by now that he's wanted to go to war with Iraq since he took the White House hostage in 2000.

So you're saying you'd actually BELIEVE him? OMG, he's a BUSH.

He steals, he lies, he cares only about corporations and gives no shit about anyone who isn't making $300,000 per year, he breaks the law and gets away with it.

That's what he DOES. That's what ALL Bushes do. That's what they've done since they've disgraced this earth with their sorry presences.

What part of this did NO one understand going in? What was so enigmatic and charming about this fortunate son assrapist that no one GOT it? What about this war-prelude fantasy concocted by defense corporation-bought warhawks was SO iron-clad a case that attacking a nation that threatened not ONE American citizen seemed so completely plausible?

Iraq was never a goddamned risk. What exactly could a nation all but destroyed by sanctions and depleted uranium everywhere do to us? Fly over here en masse? Jesus Christ.

[never_get_over_it]

98. I ABSOLUTELY would have voted NO

the night of the Senate vote was one of the worse nights of my life. So MANY Dems who I had loved and respected LET ME DOWN.

Two reasons I would have voted no - Scott Ritter said their were no WMDs and I believed him - AND also I knew then as I know now that the freak in chief is a BIG FAT LIAR.

BTW Senator Bob Graham as much as said he voted NO because Bush is a big fat liar - he was just way more polite about it.

[timtom]

102. A clear and resounding "NO!"

It didn't take a f***ing rocket scientist to discover who Bush was and is. And that goes for the rest of his cronies.

It's like Groucho in "Horse Feathers",

"Whatever it is, I'm against it."

[Marie26]

104. No, no, no.

I have no sympathy for Dems who try to say that they didn't believe Bush would go to war. That's what he DOES. And yeah, I did know that Hussein didn't have significant WMDs anymore. And I knew that the war would be a total disaster, leading to a long occupation & thousands of lost lives. And millions of other Americans knew that too.

And you know, even if Hussein did have WMD (which he didn't), that doesn't mean that he could use them against the US. His missiles don't reach far enough. The whole WMD issue was just a way to exploit Americans' fear & gain support for the war.

[Zynx]

106. I was opposed to it at the time and it is a matter of record.

I gave a speech in my very rightwing highschool. However, if I was in a marginal seat, for example representing an area similar to mine, the practical concerns would have to play a role.

[wtmusic]

107. Threads like this make me appreciate John Edwards

"I made a mistake."

It takes a leader to admit to a mistake, and a bigger leader to admit to the serious ones.

[FrenchieCat]

124. But then again, that is part of Edwards' problem......

seems that he has to make the mistake first before he gets it. a 3 year later apology wasn't based on finally realizing he was wrong, as much as trying to clear the way for his next run. No one takes 3 years to figure out what they should have known ahead of time. That's not a good learning curve to use to reward someone with the Presidency, IMO.

[Desertrose]

144. Excellent point. 3 years is a long time to figure THAT out. n/t

[Carolina]

179. exactly

besides: "I'm sorry, I was wrong" just doesn't cut it when so much death and destruction has occurred.

The decision to go to war should not be made in haste or for political expediency. Sen. Robert Byrd gave an impassioned speech, warning his colleagues not to abandon their Constitutional duty, not to rush to war. That's when he became my hero and most of the current crop of presidential hopefuls lost any leadership credibilty.

[Avalux]

110. NO NO NO! I knew from the beginning what was up - lies.

Why didn't our elected officials, who had more information than us, vote against it??

[Individualist]

114. Hell NO!

The facts were available to anyone who cared enough to find out what was going on. The Chimperor's character was well known prior to his selection, so it was clear that a vote for IWR would be a green light for the attack and occupation.

[Rex]

117. NEVER

Can you vote 'never in a million years'?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

119. I would have voted not only "no" but "HELL NO!"

And anyone who knew me personally at the time can attest to the fact that I attended anti-war rallies along with about 30,000 of my fellow Portlanders.

I'm very proud that all the Dems in the Oregon Congressional delegation were anti-war.

[KG]

127. a steaming pile of apologia for politcal cowadice and moral corruption.

how nice. :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

138. What you said...

but DOUBLE.

It's not hindsight, as someone upthread contends, but FORESIGHT that many of us had regarding the truth behind the IWR.

No one who was here at DU at the time leading up to the IWR can say they were not forewarned of exactly what Bush was up to, or that they were not given evidence of the lies we were being fed .

The information was public. It was widely available for those who bothered to look. It was known enough that tens of milllions of us took to the streets in the month and weeks leading up to the invasion to stop it. It was known enough that 23 Senators voted against the IWR.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PEE ON ME AND CONVINCE ME IT IS RAINING.

And here is Sen. Robert Bryd on the IWR:

http://www.counterpunch.org/byrd1004.html

"...The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

...

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns? As recently as Tuesday (Oct. 1), the President said he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted to give the President open-ended authority now, to exercise whenever he pleases, in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who was behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. We have dealt with al Qaeda and with the Taliban government that sheltered it - we have routed them from Afghanistan and we are continuing to pursue them in hiding.

...

So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue.

...

The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many and serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use of force resolution. We don't need more rhetoric. We don't need more campaign slogans or fund raising letters. We need - the American people need - information and informed debate."

[Carolina]

180. wasn't that a powerful speech

and didn't you just feel sick when nonetheless, many Dems -- especially many of the current and now former presidential hopefuls -- caved.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

183. That was the day my belief in...

the "Democratic Party" was burst. I had always maintained this vision of my party as the one that dares to do the right thing.

I watched every speech I could that day. And I was inspired by many, scared by some, and appalled by others.

To watch Democrats stand up and advocate for passage of the IWR just blew my mind, especially because I knew the truth about Saddam and WMD and of the intense effort by activists - including those here -- to educate their Democratic Reps on the Bush lies and what lay in store.

In that moment, I saw them for what they truly were -- politicians so bent on either winning a upcoming contest or maintaining their seat sometime in the future they were willing to back a madman's illegal invasion of another country.

I have never been so disgusted in my life. I truly couldn't believe what I was seeing.

And now, when I see someone -- be it a DUer or a candidate -- trying to "spin" what was perhaps one of the turning points in our country's history, I want to scream.

I, for one, will not forget.

[Carolina]

184. "inspired by many, scared by some, and appalled by others"

so true. That's the day, I too, lost faith and why I can't give anyone who voted for such an atrocity a free pass now.

I felt sick -- a knot in the stomach sickness -- when that vote took place, the same feeling I had when JFK was murdered and when the Supremes stopped the Florida recount in 2000... It was a sense of foreboding doom that has sadly proved true.

Here's to ya, my friend :hi:

[redqueen]

132. An attack on US soil? From IRAQ?

:wtf:

Yeah, to answer your question... I would have voted NO!

I remember listening to the speeches being given before our dems voted yes... I was shocked and sickened and disgusted and lots of other very negative adjectives.

[tgnyc]

139. In the words of that great stateswoman, Whitney Houston: Hell-to-the-No!

[progressoid]

140. NO!!! (in all caps, underlined, and using a bold, loud font) NO!!!

I wrote to my Senators and called them as well...only more articulately.

[Desertrose]

141. Your facts seem off...I would have voted NO.

In fact I was screaming it in my head for days & weeks.

Too bad it didn't make a damn bit of difference.

I disagree with your timing...there were many who said beforehand Iraq has NO WMD....but certain people just didn't like that fact and chose to ignore it.

[progressivebydesign]

142. No one can ever answer this question for me...

Okay. The IWR at the time, was presented as approval to explore all options to get Iraq to comply. And I agree, AT THAT TIME, even our Congress was being totally misled about everything (and bush should have been impeached for it). I think it's hard to fathom as an official in D.C. that you would be openly lied to and misled by people you work with everyday. So, many voted for it, and some voted because they felt it was a way to slow things down to give a chance for compliance (because they were led to believe there was no compliance at that point), send a message, and make it official. I have NO qualms with that.

So.. my question is this. The term "ILLEGAL WAR" has been screamed from keyboards and rooftops from DU to every Iraq War protest. How EXACTLY can people here attack those that voted for the IWR (which was passed) claiming that they "approved the war" and call it an "illegal war" at the same time? If the people they're trying to roast because they approved the war didn't actually approve the war (because it's an illegal war because only a war DECLARATION can start a war), are the people attacking those that voted "yes" just using that as an excuse to attack those representatives??? I can go back easily and cite every time the same people attack those that voted "yes", used the term "illegal war".

is that clear? If folks like HIllary Clinton supposedly voted for the war and caused the war, then how can it be an "illegal" war? It was not a DECLARATION of war, and we ALL know that Bush did NOT have the authority to do what he did. That was not the purpose of the resolution.

So what is it? Illegal or not????

[progressivebydesign]

143. And is the fact that Joseph Wilson endorses Hillary Clinton lost on everyone here??

That speaks volumes to me about the IWR and those that voted for it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

145. His endorsement was not lost on me...

it lessened my opinion of him slightly. :shrug:

[Carolina]

182. I agree

His, Wesley Clark's and a host of other such endorsements have not helped HRC. Instead, they lessened the endorsers' credibility in my eyes.

[WinkyDink]

147. Definitely NO. And I put shoe leather to street for it, also.

"another attack on US soil" = BALDERDASH.

Were we living in a "Post-12/07/41" world before Bush?

[dropkickpa]

150. Hell no

I told my brother as we were watching the towers burn "I guarantee this will somehow turn into a war in Iraq, just watch and see." He told me I was crazy. Cuckooo!

[in_cog_ni_to]

154. NO. I knew the thugs in this administration were LYING...n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

155. I would have co-sponsored it with Joe Lieberman.

That obviously was the only realistic option at the time. :shrug:

[Cabcere]

159. As a seventeen-year-old at the time...

I was against the war, for many reasons, and almost certainly would've voted NO. However, you bring up some good points...I think it's good to remember that virtually nothing is as simple as black & white, right or wrong, etc. :hi: Peace.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

160. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Despite not having access to all of the "intelligence" that Bush et. al had at the time, I knew enough about Iraq to at least know that Iraq was in no way the kind of threat that they were all claiming it to be and I've never read (or heard) anywhere that Iraq ever threatened us beyond occasionally firing at some of our planes patrolling the no-fly zones there at the time. I don't think that, in the absence of weapons inspectors, anybody could be completely sure about whether or not he still had any WMD stockpiles but given the general knowledge about the state of disrepair of the country after the first Gulf War and the fact that Saddam couldn't even control the airspace above his own country, I didn't consider Iraq to be an imminent threat to its own neighbors let alone the US after the first Gulf War and I was simply incredulous that anybody else could genuinely believe that it was, especially since both Powell and Rice had reported a year earlier that Iraq had been successfully contained through the previous weapons inspections, bombings, no-fly zones, and crippling economic sanctions. Pushing to get inspectors back into Iraq was a good idea and if that was all Bush et. al were interested in, then that would've been fine with me but I never for once believed that we needed to invade/occupy Iraq and that's really what the IWR was all about for Bush et. al and too many people didn't realize it at the time and/or cast their vote based on political calculations about the upcoming 2002 midterm elections. The denigration of the weapons inspections process by Bush, Cheney, et. al following their reinsertion in January 2003, their lack of cooperation with inspectors in locating the allegedly well-hidden stockpiles of WMD, and their demands for their withdrawal in March in anticipation of a coming invasion further reinforced my belief that they were committed to invading/occupying Iraq whether or not anything was ever found and/or Saddam peacefully disarmed. Because of this, it doesn't seem like the IWR really mattered all that much in the long run although, as I had feared, it gave Bush et. al a way to "legitimize" his otherwise unlawful invasion/occupation of a sovereign non-hostile country and attack anti-war opponents and people who voted for it but later became critical of the invasion/occupation, particularly after no WMD, let alone stockpiles of them, were ever found by US weapon inspection teams. It is always difficult to say what I would have definitely done had I been in Congress and was worried about my re-election prospects in 2002 but I hope that I would've been strong enough to stand my ground and vote my conscience even if it cost me my seat.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

162. If my Democratic senate or congress seat depended on it I'd vote for it

once re elected I might stop voting for funding at some point but I wouldn't sacrifice a D senate seat to vote against it if that's the situatino I found myself in because that would be giving up all other issues for one of many principles.

[WritersBlock]

167. Absolutely, without a doubt, I would have voted NO.

My conservative sister will vouch for me here; we had so many heated arguments about it that we didn't speak for months.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

169. I knew it was BS from the get go and emailed and phoned Clinton and Schumer to Vote No!

Of course we found out how that went.

[lutefisk]

172. "No." I didn't believe Colin Powell's disgusting UN show either.

I still find it difficult to believe that as many people were really fooled as say they were.

[wellst0nev0ter]

196. Bob Graham Was The Democratic Senator Who Was Head Of The Intelligence Committee

He saw the same "intelligence" that the busholvekis did.

He heard the same rhetoric bombastic rhetoric.

He was one of the few brave Senators that voted no.

My beef with Hillary isn't so much that she voted for the IWR, but that she didn't do her homework, and she will not apologize for it.