to restrict Bush from starting the war unless they DID find WMD before an attack began. The Bush administration wasn't pretending in October that the existence of these weapons had already been proven.

But the Dems knew that they would be a minority in January, so that if they voted down the IWR in the fall, then the Rethugs could come back in January and pass a new IWR giving Bush a complete blank check. So they passed the IWR with restrictions, instead of sitting back and waiting for a blank check IWR to be passed.

Afterwards, Bush -- with the complicity of the media -- simply ignored the restrictions. I don't know if I would use the word hoax, but Bush deceived the Dems about his intent to comply with the IWR if they passed it.

In any case, it was the best they could do, because Bush was going forward with that war, either with a blank check from the Rethugs in January or qualified approval from the Dems in October.

Are you suggesting that the Dem members of the IC were less well informed about the politics of the vote than their colleagues who voted for?

I would counter that knowing what they did -- and that was info available to any Senator who asked for it -- they couldn't vote in favor of that Bill, even as amended by Levin and Kerry. Even Sen. Levin voted against it.

How do you explain that?

planted WMD in Iraq, then what?

The rest, not so much. Some had better judgment and reasons for what they did than others. But, they shouldn't be treated equally in the eyes of history. Those who stepped in monkey poo in Iraq maybe shouldn't have gone there.

Anyone who has sincerely renounced their votes in favor of the Resolution should receive some consideration. Those who claim they were tricked, well there were others who weren't, so that doesn't excuse everyone.

Finally, those who would now get us into similar optional wars in Syria or Iran -- and we know who they are -- should be pilloried and primaried.

You, too, are active duty Fighting 101st Keyboard Brigade, yes?

did so because they did believe that they were giving Bush the leverage to both get invasive inspections (as the inspectors were not there for 4 years since they were thrown out in 1998) and to use diplomacy. The Bush argument relied on the LONG USED "politics ends at the water side" and he spoke before the vote of going to war as a last resort - as Democrats had argued the US should.

The problem was not that the vote was for war, but that it allowed Bush to claim that he had bipartisan support. In addition, very few Democrats were who voted for it spoke out in late 2002 and early 2003 when it was clear that the inspectors found nothing and that Saddam was allowing them access for inspections. (Kerry and Harkin were the only two I know of - neither Clinton did and they knew more than others.)

but of course, we know that with the filibuster, Democrats need 60 votes to pass anything in the senate and Republicans only need 50.

vote for. What you are saying is that those who voted for it did so for political reasons. There is simply no excuse for anyone to cast a vote they know will result in the loss of so many lives, for any reason. I will never forget that night and the shock I felt as I watched Democrats I respected, vote for that travesty which even people like me, relatively new to politics at the time, knew was all a lie.

I will also never forget those who had the courage to do what was right regardless of their political careers. Sen. Byrd's speech which came right before Hillary Clinton's, was memorable and will go down in history. Those who voted for it will also go down in history, shamefully.

Voting for war is voting to kill people.

So that's why Senator Leahy in his speech prior to the vote called it a blank check, not just once but 10x? That's why in the same speech he compared the IWR to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x373397

Honestly, that is what I read on DU today. IMHO; everyone stupid enough to fall for this kind of shit is surely not fit to represent anyone...

And that's something to keep in mind in 2016.

I understand having to protect your seat or your future political prospects, but there are certain votes that are non-negotiable. That is to say, there are certain votes--war primary among them--that should be entirely immune to political considerations. This one was not. I believe that the majority of those Democrats (and even some Republicans) who voted for that authorization were timid, scared, and trying to pick the right side of a political issue. They were wrong.

I worked mightily to prevent a yes vote on that measure, and did not succeed with my one Senator who voted for it. I then went out to protest for the first time since the 1960s, to try to prevent it from happening.

bush admin.

In the run up to Afghanistan and Iraq war. I do not give my vote to people who have blood of millions on their hands.

I hope everyone knows the right thing to do.

Do Not Let Her In There.

Or more catastrophes like Iraq await.

with trying to let Bush off the hook, which is what this is.

You list the Senators who voted against the resolution that passed. Yet they all voted for one or more of the other resolutions, and Feingold stated on the Senate floor: "The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue."

Iraq: Bush lied
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022389965

As I said above, "Some had better judgment and reasons for what they did than others. But, they shouldn't (all) be treated equally in the eyes of history."

It was the final vote on the IWR that counted. There were amendments offered by Kerry and Levin that were intended to limit the effect of the Bill. Feingold voted against the final Bill. You know that, ProSense.

I can certainly forgive those who learned from the experience of IWR 2002, and have since tried to avoid similar mistakes in Syria and Iran. I will work like hell to get some of them elected or support them in appointed office, on a case-by-case basis. But, I can't ever forgive and will NEVER vote for those who didn't. I particularly resent those in politics and the media who try to blur the distinction between the two.

"It was the final vote on the IWR that counted. There were amendments offered by Kerry and Levin that were intended to limit the effect of the Bill. Feingold voted against the final Bill. You know that, ProSense. "

....I'm saying that every Senator, including Feingold, took to the floor of the Senate to not only denounce Saddam, but also to express grave concern about Iraq's WMD. That was based on the faulty intelligence.

The assumption behind the Iraq WMD casus belli is that it's okay for the U.S. to go to war with anyone (we don't like) developing the bomb. That's an underlying premise to this debate that's hardly a given. The fact of the matter is that the only nuclear power in the region that has actually threatened its neighbors with first-use is Israel. That happened during the '73 War, when Syria began to overrun Israeli tank positions on the Golan Heights and in the Sinai when Sadat's forces were making very effective use of their newly acquired anti-aircraft capabilities.

The Israeli leadership communicated to Kissinger that it was prepared to use its nuclear weapons if there was a breakthrough of Arab forces on either front. Nixon had another nervous breakdown. Alexander Haig arranged for a bunch of NATO F-4s parts and TOWs to be air-freighted Next Day Delivery.

So, I will agree, the assumptions underlying the intelligence about Iraq WMDs were faulty, but also on a more fundamental level.

Nope, the vote was irrelevant, Bush was already invading Iraq with or without a resolution allowing him to do so. The vote was procedural for all intents and purposes. He would have went into Iraq using War Powers like Obama did in Libya (although Libya was obviously far less invasive).

Bush's argument was that we were "still at war" with Iraq and therefore U.N. Resolution 678 was still in effect. Rendering the invasion of Iraq fully legal, without any condition by the Congress. It was all a horse and pony show. No substance whatsoever.

The JCS and CIA were also wary of the argument, and knew better. Without something resembling a Declaration, no matter how vague, they would have balked, as they balked in the 2007 push toward Iran.

To paraphrase an earlier inglorious regime, "How many divisions does the Office of the Vice President have?"

Indeed, the IWR basically justifies Bush's view (acting outside of the UNSC):

This was how Tony Blair initially wanted to handle it. The IWR vote was always meant as a political trap and public relations coup.

There should also be no doubt in anyone's mind that WMDs would have been planted by BushInc if necessary.

Grab an independent linguist with sufficient clearance and go directly to the CIA, NSA, satellite imagers, and others as necessary demanding to examine for yourself the raw WMD intelligence, i.e. intercepts, debriefings, satellite imagery, etc. You know, the nuts and bolts that were the basis for Tenant's "slam dunk" pronouncements, "mushroom clouds," and all the rest. The truth is the raw data didn't exist because the WMD didn't exist.

This was an election year. 9/11 was only a little over a year in the past. Bush had recklessly, sneakily, and wrongly pushed the nation's war buttons in the SOTU. The Bush/Cheney administration was salting the media with fearful, false warnings of WMDs, then using the same salted media as backup to spin more fearful, false warnings. Bush was openly questioning whether Democrats were even interested in protecting the nation.

You obviously don't remember that time very well if you think Dems could have voted down the IWR. The American people had been riled and lied to by their "president." And Republicans in and out of the administration were standing behind the smirking little twerp cheering on their hero, George W. Bush.

There was no way to vote down the IWR. Had the Dems lined up against it we would simply have been clobbered in the election. Then the newly elected Republicans would simply have passed a new IWR anyway.

Bush and his Republicans committed a disgusting, criminal-minded, politically dirty mugging of the world.

there's a whole stinking shitload of people willing to make excuses for them.

subversive facts and stuff that we all know is of no importance at all.

Run!

Bush acted unilaterally.

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

Hans Blix, David Kelly, Robert Fisk.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

The congress people were complicit in not coming down on Bush for his war propaganda, but they were boxed in politically.

Standing for certain principles is the reason a political party exists. It doesn't matter that a bill will pass anyway, when the lies are exposed and the action is found to be a mistake or a crime, the votes against it are significant. When a politician or a party has built a track record of being wrong most of the time, the voters can take that into consideration when deciding for whom to vote this time.

We all agree that the whole of the republican party is wrong on practically everything, but giving cover to Reich-wing Democrats for no reason other than they are Democrats fosters the opinion that there is little or no difference.

Today's Democratic Party stands for nothing other than getting elected. They will legitimize with their support anything that makes that more likely.

I'm simply explaining the political reality, the one that transcends principles. Since the vast majority of politicians are unprincipled. This is not "giving cover" to those unprincipled Democrats, it's putting the onus on the Iraq War squarely where it belongs, on Bush and his administration. Bush, Chaney, should be in the Hague. Bush admitted in his book he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq.

On the one hand you attempt to lay the entire blame on an administration that clearly demonstrated itself and its "decider" to be completely untrustworthy and unscrupulous from the primary through the selection, then you turn around and exclaim that getting elected is the only thing that matters. That "the core principle of any party" is merely to win the election.

You follow this admonition with the revelation that Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence committee must easily be among the stupidest people on earth and that's why they didn't know what tens of millions of people with no access to any inside information at all could see weeks in advance.

The fact that you wrote this nonsense, and apparently believe that it somehow justifies their actions, just reinforces the point that you have still missed.

I am pointing out facts. Plain and simple. Bush was going into Iraq regardless. And he had the power to do so.

It's amusing that you put words in my mouth when I am in of course agreement with the OP on principle, but as I said, politicians, by and large, don't have principles. Elect principled politicians.

inspectors that there were no WMDs. What they did was for political expediency and as usual political expediency backfired on them. One of these days they may learn to vote for what is right no matter where the sacred cows come crashing down.

the inspectors against use of military force at that point. Few did. Most stayed sided with Bush.

Bill Clinton urged Dem senators to stand with Bush on his Iraq decisions. Dem senators should have been able to trust Clinton's assessment of the threat since he had access to classified intel on Iraq that NO senators had.

Bush didn't give one fuck about them though and ordered them to leave.

edit: wow I just learned that Bush only allowed two people on the Senate Intelligence Committee to have access to intel. I did not know that.

who had unfettered access to ALL intel on Iraq. Democratic lawmakers SHOULD have been able to trust Bill Clinton's assessment completely - he let them down - maybe to continue his alliance with the Bush family, maybe not, but he definitely used his credibility to get Bush what he wanted on Iraq.

I thought he was on it during the Iraq War run up. I will edit my posts.

Dems voting on IWR deserved Clinton's best analysis. Bill told Tony Blair and DC Dems to support Bush's decisions on Iraq.

My recollection is that before the IWR vote a number of Senators, including Clinton, were granted access to the classified CIA Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, which is supposed to be the authoritative IC document. I'll look around for the source to that.

ON EDIT: It turns out that Clinton along with some of the other leading advocates for passage of the IWR claim they didn't even bother to read the Iraq NIE, even though Clinton stated in a speech to the Senate the day before the vote that Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attack:

Yeah, that sounds silly, but they need to enlist pages to sit around and assure that politicians are reading intelligence, scientific, social, and economic reports (from non-partisan groups) relating to the legislation they're signing off on. Far far too many politicians are voting for things that they don't read.

Note, one thing, I think you misread Hillary's quote, because it's a double negative in the Wiki article. She said, "... there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ... Now this much is undisputed."

Like I did there. Thanks for the correction on that point.

then Senator now Governor Mark Dayton and of course the late Paul Wellstone

But, instead he rose in the polls (proving not all Minnesotans are as dumb as those who vote for Bachmann).

Mikulski always sent me very thoughtful responses to my letters encouraging her to vote against war.

See every Democratic Senator who ran for President in 2004 or 2008 but Barack Obama.

Saddam Hussein pissed off a great deal number of rich and powerful men, not just in this country, but around the world.

The Iraq Liberation Act was passed in 1998. It gave the president authorization to invade Iraq. The Iraq war resolution in 2003 wasn't even legally required. Bush already had the power to invade from day one he took office. Nothing was going to stop America from invading that country. We just needed a spark. 9/11 was the spark.

Who was really behind this push to war is something we may never know the truth. No one in either party wants to investigate it. A 3rd party would have to be elected for it to be fully investigated because the two major parties both have blood on their hands. And they are going to cover this all up.

likely, castigating ALL others? those guilty of intentional crimes + those guilty of one or more errors in judgement, equally? Or trying to figure out which is which, so the type of change one calls for is appropriate to those who are responsible for changing?

The type of change we should demand from those who intentionally lied and purposefully shirked their responsibilities to humanity, American and Iraq, is essentially different from the type of change we should call for from those who make mistakes. If you don't get that sorted out, you can turn someone who made a mistake into someone who will intentionally lie to you and avoid their responsibilities for others, because the standards for doing so are not coherent to them (because they are mistaken in their understanding of those standards).

If one tries to understand what/why/how things occur(ed) as they do, that creates options for appropriate responses that differentiate between intent and mistake. If the truth matters, those differences should matter, because when the difference between intent and mistake is dis-respected that makes the truth less valuable to more people.