We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada), Addressing the US Senate October 9, 2002, Congressional Record, p. S10145 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts), Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq, March 17, 2003 http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030331&s=lizza033103 SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled? GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this. Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana), Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation", November 2, 2003 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat." Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia), Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002 http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President, Speech to San Francisco, Commonwealth Club, September 23, 2002 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
I agree Congress was wrong to give Bush that tool without further guarantees. But is your position that Congress should have known that Bush was lying when he said that the vote was all about him keeping the peace? If so congress certainly would be more at fault, but it would also mean that Bush lied. Is your position that Bush didn't lie when he said the vote was to keep the peace? If that was the case then Congress should be absolved of all blame because they believed their vote would be keeping the peace.
My position is that Congress didn't authorize intervention with no expectation of intervention. That the authorization was subject to further periodic review also cuts against the view that Congress made a wink wink authorization with no expectation of intervention. That Congressman have been repeatedly quoted as being in favor of removing Saddam (both before and after the intervention) also cuts against that view. IF, however, I am wrong - and they are a bunch of boobs who authorized the intervention while not really meaning to do so - then even then they failed in their duty and bear some responsibility for that failure. Either way, whether you believe as I do or otherwise, Congress is culpable in the action.
but do you admit that the resolution did state that all diplomatic efforts must first be exhausted? Bush did not exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Do you admit that a coalition was not built - France and Germany were at least once key U.S. allies like it or not. Congress never advocated regime change - the advocated enforcing U.N. resolutions. And the U.N. definitely did not support regime change.
'Exhausted' is not in the authorization resolution. Nor is it an objective term. Rather it is a POV. 11 years, countless resolutions, force authorizations, military actions, and exile ultimatums - one could certainly hold the view that diplomacy was 'exhausted'. Of course a coalition was built: the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, and about 30 other countries. Wrong. First, regime change was the official policy of the US since the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Second, regime change is specifically authorized in the Joint Authorization Resolution for the intervention in Iraq. I even quoted it verbatim above.
Hayes, do you truly believe Bush was being honest with the American people and Congress, when he decided to invade and occupy Iraq? Do you believe he is being honest today? Keep D&D Civil.
I honestly believe it was groupthink. It was extreme groupthink because Bush is dumb and so once he makes up his mind he doesn't want to hear anything else. He's committed to that decision. I believe he was so convinced in his conclusion that he couldn't see any other conclusion. There is a difference between being honest and being accurate. But I also think it is important to remember that Bush was decidedly NOT an interventionist when he took office. The 'cabalists conspiracy' camp are definitively wrong IMO when they claim it was always the plan of the administration to intervene in Iraq. I'm curious, Deckard. Do you think Congress should be absolved of any culpability as some of these other posters do? Were they boobs duped by the Bush braintrust?
A couple of problems with the line of argument that the vote was a vote for war and that the Democrats bear as much culpability as Republicans. The intent of this section is to work with the UN and get necessary resolutions passed. A resolution was passed regarding restarting inspections but a resolution or even a vote authorizing invasion was never taken by the UNSC. While the section has an out regarding the languange "work for" the intent of it is to bring the UN in. A process that was truncated by the Bush Admin. itself. Also it should be noted that almost half of Democratic senators voted against the authorization while only one Republican voted against it. I would agree the Congress as a whole dropped the ball and surrendered their own war making power but this wasn't something that the Democrats are as culpable as the Republicans and the Republican party being the majority party with almost unanimous support for it are far more culpable.
A couple of points: I'm not sure I said Democrats bear as much culpability as Republicans, having taken 'equally culpable' out of several of my posts pre-posting. Truncating the process is your opinion. One can certainly argue that it was apparent some of the security council was not going to take action and was in actuality moving away from even containing Iraq. Further, this seems like a pretty disingenuous defense of Congress - either its totally wrong and Congress envisioned intervention sans the UN or it was fairly bumbling brinksmanship with the UN (if you don't vote for it we'll do it on our own) on the part of Congress. OTOH more than half the Democratic Senators voted for it and more in the House. I am not trying to minimize the GOP culpability, rather am trying to point out that in these discussions most of the posters seem to have blinders on when examining Congress's (in general) and Democrats (specifically) culpability.
Here's the reference to diplomacy in the joint resolution: That sounds like the definition of exhaustive to me. Considering we just ignored the UNSC wishes and just made a coalition of 30 crapola countries - most of whom didn't even contribute troops but was lip service against the coalition that opposed us doesn't seem to register upon you. We didn't give diplomacy a chance with the UNSC. We just said - forget it, we're going to war - even if Saddam complies, it's too late. We don't care. And you fail to mention that previous inspectors were kicked out because of spying - which they admited to! The U.S. violated the U.N. resolutions by spying! And last but not least - your big article didn't have the words "regime change" in them. So please quote it before you flaunt it.
The only thing the democrats can be accused of is being wuzzes in the face of a popular president with a war agenda. For that they are culpable. But for this war - only Bush and his admin are. This is their war - no one elses.
funny how war supporters all exclusively owned this war at the beginning think it will be a cakewalk, a success, and change the world for the better.. we are the War party.. if you're not with us you're against us.. only us repubs have the balls to go to war.. now that its proven a failure, they say this war is as much the dems war as the repubs.. what? do we have a bipartisan admin in the whitehouse? do we have powersharing between repubs and dems in congress & senate?
Yet Bush made the case that the vote for authorization would be used to keep the peace(no intervention). If they believed the President they should not have expected that authorization to be put to use. But I do agree that they threw away their power with that vote, and should not have done it. I just think that Bush lied in the matter as well.
I think we can agree that some the Democrats in Congress declare some culpability but you 're making this sound like the Democrats should be getting blamed as much as the Republicans or that that the Republicans should be getting political cover. The Republican party was the majority party at the time along with a Republican presidency. While many Democrats went along with it this was a Republican issue. Isn't cutting off the process cause you don't feel you're going to get your way not truncating the process? The language of the resolution clearly states work with the UN. Pulling out before there is even a final vote doesn't seem like working with the UN. That seems like throwing in the towell. As for bumbling brinksmanship I would say it certainly was on the part of the Admin. since there was never a final vote to test anyone's brinkmanship. I agree that Congress as a whole certainly is culpable but as I said the Republicans were the majority and were nearly unanimous in support of it. While many Democrats did support it they were far from unanimous and this vote reflected more of an individual choice on the part of Congressional Dems than any sort party policy.
At the time of the intervention there was plenty of reason to believe that diplomacy would neither protect our national security nor result in the enforcement of UN resolutions. What's your point? We are ON the UNSC. There was NO consensus at the time which is the whole point of getting authorization for US action sans the UN. 30 'crapola' countries? Why is Germany's opinion more important that Spain or Italy's opinion? Let us know how you determine which countries are 'crapola.' Most of the countries that participated in the much ballyhoo'd '91 coalition were BOUGHT, for crying out loud. See Egypt (foreign aid and loans), see Syria (we promised not to pursue action for their past support of terrorism), and on and on. That doesn't seem to 'register' with you. Your opinion. You're entitled to it, but don't make the mistake of trying to pass it off as fact. Some might say 11 YEARS of UNSC resolutions counts as giving diplomacy a chance. Not sure why this is at all relevant, even if it were true. Uh, try again. First off it isn't an 'article,' but rather the Joint Resolution from Congress. Second, it says: Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; If you want to argue that 'remove from power the current Iraqi regime' and 'replace that regime' doesn't mean regime change, lol, then I guess I'm just wasting time. Flaunt Flaunt I'm not sure if this is directed at me specifically or not, since I'm not a Republican. However, I could have been clearer in the beginning that my point is IF you are against the intervention then you should also recognize Congress's culpability. I supported the intervention from the beginning and still do, although I think the administration and Congress have done a poor job of running the intervention and that there should be accountability for the groupthink justifications FOR the intervention. Your conclusion flies in the face of the recorded conclusions of the Congress, including prominent Democrats. It flies in the face of the whole reason for the War Powers Act and the necessity of 'authorization' to begin with. But even if you are right, I think if you're correct then Congress is at least guilty of incompetance. And I think we agree on that point. I am not in any way saying Republicans should be getting 'political cover.' I can't be any clearer about that. I guess although I'm not sure if the Democrats could have stopped the authorization or not, either through a technical mechanism or by raising hell about the issue but I would tend to agree that Republicans possibly could have pushed their agenda through regardless. But I also think that you and FB, unlike some of the other posters, recognize that there is enough culpability to go around for both Congress in general and the Democrats specifically. A final vote wasn't necessary since it was already acknowledged nothing was going to happen. I think we are in agreement generally. Would you agree then that those who say 'we should vote out the Republicans because of Iraq' should also vote out the Democrats who voted for it?
Of course Congress deserves culpability for the decision to go along with the desires of the Bush Administration, and that includes the Democrats who voted for the measure. Do I think many of them were duped? Yes, I do, but they didn't ask the tough questions. They were afraid that post-9/11, they would be branded as weak on national security if they did. That, in my opinion, is not an excuse. Should it preclude some of them running for higher office? That is up to the voters to decide. Right now, I wouldn't argue strongly against this view. Bush is dumb. I think he was manipulated by people close to him to invade Iraq, like Cheney, Rumsfeld (who thought the whole thing would be a cakewalk, the idiot), and the other obvious players. And it played into his own inclination, IMO, to correct a mistake he thought his Dad had made by leaving Saddam in power after the Gulf War. He thought it would show him to be as great, or greater a statesman as his father, a person of immense international and government experience, who must be heartbroken, privately, at what his son has made of his Presidency. Keep D&D Civil.
Still, the resolution called for diplomacy and working through the UN. We gave the UNSC an ultimatum and then walked away - what kind of dimplomacy is that? 11 years of diplomacy that prevented Saddam from acquiring nukes - 11 years of diplomacy that worked! Let's look at that those countries. This coalition didn't have Syria or Egypt - in fact, not a single Muslim nation was on the coalition. Spain pulled out, and Italy is pulling out in a few months by the way. No Islamic countries (not even Kuwait). This is nothing like the coalition before in 1991. So we have Jamaica, Serbia, Albania, Costa Rica, Latvia, Moldova, El Salvador , and Mongolia???? I mean, these are the kind of countries besides Italy and Spain that were part of the coalition. What on earth is that? Please - do not tell me the world was behind what we were doing! It's true - the point is that Saddam had a right to kick out the inspectors - they were not suppose to be spying. Sorry you didn't know that. Again, the United States should support efforts to remove the current Iraqi regime and promote emergence of a democratic government. That means assisting groups within Iraq. It does not say "The United states should remove the current Iraqi regime and build a democratic government". It does not say the U.S. should execute regime change in Iraq - it should support the IRaqi people in doing it on their own!
IMO that would be going against "working for" called for in the resolution. If it was working for shouldn't they had at least stuck around for the vote and then taken it from there. For that matter if it wasn't bumbling brinksmanship or just plain bad diplomacy wouldn't the Admin. have fullfilled the terms of the resolution by actually trying to pass a UNSC resolution instead of pulling out when things got stuff. If one's only issue is Iraq I would say so in fact I believe MoveOn.org has campaigned against a few of the pro-war Democrats.
"Working for" is fulfilled by going to the rest of the SC and trying to get a further resolution passed. When France et al make it known they would not vote for such a resolution then actually proposing it and watching it get voted down is unnecessary. It's a nonsensical extra step that you're calling for to meet the standard of 'working for,' as had the administration done so the effect would have been the same. When the effort to get a stronger resolution hit a dead end then the 'working for' standard is fulfilled. That's hindsight and whether it worked or not begs the question. The question we were addressing was whether or not diplomatic efforts had been made. As I indicated previously, one can easily argue that 11 years of cat and mouse with Saddam is enough diplomacy. Again please tell us how you determine which countries are 'crappola.' I already explained how Syria and Egypt came into the first coalition and if you think buying that membership makes the first coalition more legitimate then we just have to disagree. Spain and Italy pulling out are irrelevant to our discussion of whether or not there WAS a coalition at the time of the intervention. You're simply moving your claim as you're proven wrong. First you said there was no coalition. Obviously you were wrong. Then you said the coalition was crappola countries, but you can't give a reason why Italy and Spain or Poland are less legitimate than Germany. Then you said there were no Muslim countries in the coaltion. Again you were wrong. Next you'll probably say those are crappola Muslim countries. Just admit you were wrong. This begs the question of course, especially considering many of the Muslim countries were bought in the first coalition, but you're wrong again: See Azerbaijan and Bosnia. Again, whether this is true or not it begs the question. Why is it relevant to this discussion? Considering it is in the text of the authorization to intervene in Iraq, you sound pretty silly saying it doesn't authorize intervention in Iraq. You can try to detract the discussion all you want with irrelevant observations but if you think only Republicans were responsible for the intervention then you're just sticking your head in the sand.
Except that shows that they had given up on diplomacy when the real test of it is a vote. Certainly a vote with a high probability of failure but without even willing to try for a vote shows no honest faith in diplomacy and working for getting a resolution. Its only in the opinon of having no faith in diplomacy that such action is nonsensical when anyone who understands diplomacy understands the symbolic importance of such actions. While the vote was in all likelyhood going to go against the Bush Admin. by failing to even try for the vote shows that diplomacy and working with the UN was never really something they were interested in and they were just paying lip service to the language of the resolution. I will agree with you that Congress and many congressional Dems are culpable and dropped the ball on what should've been their Constitutional duty. That said under the langauge of the resolution though its not a given at all that those who voted for it weren't honestly voting for diplomacy and that it was the Admin. which gave up on that diplomacy. In that regard those Congressional Democrats are culpable due to negligence and not willingness.
