What proportion of rethug vs. dem Senators voted for Iraq war?

[freeplessinseattle]

I so tired of people telling me that the war is not a partisan issue bc not only rethugs voted for it (and it's not as if I imply it's a partisan issue, it just happens that those who chide my pro-peace sentiment are invariably rwers, they can't defend the war so they pull this irrelevent crap). I agree, war isn't a partisan issue, but for some reason the majority of peace activists are dems. So our leaders let us down, what else is new? The thing is, I vote dem bc they tend to let me down less often.


The thing I don't get is why so many non DLC dems voted for invading Iraq when anyone with half a brain knew the reasonn for invading was flimsy, and a transparent lie. Right now in my state people are talking about the Maria Cantwell campaign and I am surprised by how many are defending her vote for the war, and by the incessant idiots that never miss an opportunity to point out something a dem leader has done that goes against my beliefs, like it's my fault that politicians generally suck (just some less than others). "How do ya' like your Senator, huh?" as if a repug in her place would have voted against it? what is their point? they don't even know. they don't care is their mantra, right? *sigh*

[Daphne08]

1. Start here and this should lead to the answer, I believe.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have time at the moment to look. :)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@L&summ2=m&

[freeplessinseattle]

6. Thank you, nice resource n/t

[punpirate]

2. Take small comfort in that...

... the vote was 77-23. Twenty-eight Dems voted for it, but twenty-two (and one `pug, Chaffee) voted against it.

But, it's still small comfort. The vote for removing Hussein's army from Kuwait, which had the approval of the UN, was something like 55-45 in the Senate in late 1990, and several of those Senators (about seven or eight) said that the factor that convinced them was the story about Iraqi soldiers throwing hundreds of babies out of incubators, the story that turned out to be false, a concoction of the Kuwaiti government in conjunction with the PR firm, Hill & Knowlton.

You'd think that people who'd been hoodwinked by a Bush once before would have figured it out, but with so much talk about 9/11 being bandied about, they weren't thinking--they only cared about the backlash the right wing could cause in their districts back home if they didn't support the war.

It's a crappy situation--a scared and manipulable public, a cynical representation calculating the truth against the political fallout, and a neo-conservative administration bent on war as the best form of diplomacy.

It won't get better until better candidates surface and people vote for them--until that time, expect more of the same.

[freeplessinseattle]

4. Thank you, I knew it was a big difference

says something, I guess. though, like you said, it's small comfort.

urrrgh, it just galls me the conscienceless pols who care more about potential image problem (which would have only been temporary anyway, now they have a permanent "dumbass" stamped on their forehead) and take going to war so casually.

[izzie]

12. I go along with you on this. Another thing-------------

How could we have ever gone in an 'saved' Kuwait? That was full of lies also plus it is a one man rule country. It is time we just kept out of other countries.

[jobycom]

3. No Republicans or Democrats voted for the war

They voted to allow Bush to use force if necessary to bring Saddam Hussein into compliance with the treaties and agreements allowing the weapons inspectors to disarm him.

That's not a trivial distinction. What it means is that many of those who voted for the IWR were not voting for war. They had every belief that Bush would use every available option to avoid war, and that he would be honest in his efforts. They also believed that by involving the UN, the chance for avoiding war was strengthened.

People here forget what led to the IWR. Bush had declared that he had the right to invade Iraq without it, without any Congressional or UN approval. He could invade on his own decision because the treaties already in place with Iraq already authorized the use of force. He pointed to Clinton's bombing raids of Iraq as supporting evidence.

At the time, the big discussion we were having was whether Bush could invade on his own, or whether he needed Congressional approval. Most of the Republican in Congress were claiming Bush could invade on his own. The Democrats claimed he needed approval. The Republicans did not want to even vote on it because they believed the Democrats were simply trying to find a way to block Bush. Some Repubs, though, felt that it would be better is Bush had Congressional approval.

Thus, the compromise worked out was the IWR. Bush got authorization to use force if necessary. The Dems got assurances from Bush that he would only invade under certain conditions and only after consulting the UN. It wasn't much for the Dems, but they had no power to get much, anyway.

I remember being excited by the IWR, and believing it was a victory for our side. The part everyone forgets, the most important part of this equation, is that Bush was going to invade no matter what. Whether Congress passed the IWR or not, Bush was going to invade. The Democrats did not have enough power to stop him. They could not pass a law, nor even introduce legislation, to prevent Bush from invading. The fact that they were able to get the Republicans to agree to put restrictions on Bush at all was impressive. Bush was going to invade with or without it, and the failure of the IWR would not have stopped him. It would only have removed all restrictions from him.

ALso, remember the climate. 9-11 was still fresh. Bush was still claiming the Iraq may have been involved. All that fixed evidence the DSM talks about was being shown to Congress, and they had reason to believe it was true. Keep in mind that if Iraq did have WMDs, DC would have been a big target. This was very real to Congress.

Now, having said all that, I was still opposed to the IWR at the time. I knew Bush had no intentions of trying to avoid an invasion. I have a lot more respect for those who voted against it. But for many, especially the Dems, who voted for it, it was not a vote for war. It was a vote to put restrictions on a president who was declaring he had none.

[freeplessinseattle]

5. good point. bet they're feeling a little silly for believing that

compulsive liar.

[jobycom]

8. Not silly, angry. Problem is, it's one of those impossible issues to expla

to explain.

The MSM gives everyone these seven second soundbites, the Republicans are screaming platitudes at the top of their lungs, and even the Dem activists are claiming they voted for war. It's impossible to explain the vote now to voters without sounding like they are backtracking or splitting hairs. Imagine Kerry trying to say "Well, the reason I voted for IWR was to limit Bush's ability to wage war." The mighty laughter and screams of "Yeah, right!" would drown out the rest of the three seconds the MSM would allow him to explain it.

Same thing with the "Stay the course" message. Clinton and Kerry, for instance, aren't given the time to explain that we made a mess in Iraq and they believe we should have to clean it up, but that their "stay the course" message is fundamentally different than Bush's, who doesn't even admit there is a mess. Again, the media would mock them before they could finish that message, and take parts of their statements to make them seem ridiculous.

So you wind up with Dems like Kerry and Clinton who voted to limit Bush's power to wage war, and who now want to prevent Bush from cutting and running, leaving the giant mess he created and making America seem even more heartless and cowardly to the world, and these Democrats are now looking like they supported Bush on the invasion and on the occupation. They are victims of their own cleverness, really, because they tried to cut too fine a distinction while trying to take a middle course, and now they are stuck looking like they are doing the opposite of what they tried to do. Thus, they are hated by their own party and ideological supporters.

Tough game, politics. Notice that many of the old time Dems, who saw something similar in Viet Nam, had enough sense to just vote "No" on IWR. Subtlety in politics only works in the back rooms, it never works on PR battles. Ted Kennedy figured that out. Sadly, John Kerry didn't.

[freeplessinseattle]

15. okay, I can see that, makes me feel better about some n/t

[punpirate]

7. Legally, you're right...

... it's not a trivial distinction. But, we're not debating the legalities--we're acknowledging political realities, which is pretty much what you're saying by suggesting that "Bush was going to invade no matter what." But, let's not kid ourselves, the language of the IWR didn't put restrictions on Bush--it enabled Bush to proceed, however much you may wish to think otherwise--particularly because it specifically referenced the 1998 resolution for regime change in Iraq. It repeatedly referenced that resolution, meaning that the sense of Congress agreed with the intentions of Bush. To understand the IWR, you must also read the applicable portions of the 1998 resolution referenced in the IWR. That earlier resolution made manifest the desire for unilateral action on the part of the US.

I think you're ignoring one point--had Bush invaded without Congressional approval, that was a de facto case for impeachment. Had Congress failed to impeach, it forever gave away all its power to the Executive--and, everyone would have known that we were in the midst of a dictatorship. The 2004 election, had there been one under those circumstances, would have been different--much different.

At least, I hope it would have been. Second-guessing this is like asking would the world and the country been different had Kennedy not been assassinated. One just never knows.

[jobycom]

10. I don't agree with all of that.

First, the IWR wasn't written by Dems, so of course it was going to make a stronger case for invading than for not invading. That's the price of being out of power. There were some limits built in to the IWR--Bush had to consult the UN, he had to make a case for war--but they were weak limits. Still, they were all the Democrats had a chance of getting. Some Dems believed they were better than nothing. (I agree with Ted Kennedy, that they weren't better than nothing, but I understand why others didn't.)

Second, Congress couldn't have impeached Bush for invading Iraq. Even if there were enough Democrats to even bring impeachment charges, there would have been nothing impeachable. No bribery, no treason (defined by the Constitution as giving aid to the enemy, and nothing more), and since no one even understands the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" anymore, none of them. The Republican-controlled House wouldn't have even entertained a discussion of impeachment.

Third, Bush's popularity was high then. People would have sided with him.

Fourth, without Congressional discussion, Bush would just have declared that there was evidence of WMDs and hints of 9-11 involvement, and he wouldn't even have had to make his SOTU speech or have Powell perjure himself before the UN. He would have invaded, more quickly, and had time to plant evidence before we even got organized. We'd have had less discussion, and Bush would have looked more heroic. Until a few years later, when things began going badly. It wouldn't have changed 2004. People just don't pay enough attention for it to have mattered. No one except us wonks even realize we have a Congress. Most people just think Congress works for Bush (which it does).

[punpirate]

11. Congress being solidly Republican in 2003...

... meant that they wouldn't, not that they couldn't. There's a dramatic difference.

And, you do need to go back and review the 1998 Iraq resolution, much of which is referenced in the IWR. Agreeing to provisions of that resolution forgave Bush a great many transgressions.

The simple truth is that all of the Democrats voting for the IWR willingly allowed themselves to be deluded, and opened the door for Bush to invade at his discretion. At the time of the vote, the Democrats held a majority in the Senate, 51-49, if one considers Jim Jefford's independent status as siding with Democrats. That resolution would have died without Senate acceptance. If the Republicans had revived it in 2003, and Democrats remained firm against it, the `pugs would have owned the war lock, stock and barrel. It would have been their downfall now. Because Democrats feared that popularity of the President (at least as it was described in the press), and because they allowed themselves to be deluded, they own it, too.

My original point was that a couple of dozen Democrats did not believe the ruse the Bushies were waving. That leaves open the decision-making of the remainder of the Democrats. It's, therefore, small comfort that a few didn't take the bait. Had all stood against Bush, the Republicans couldn't now say that the war--a horrible and tragic mistake--was a bi-partisan effort.

Cheers.

[jobycom]

13. But

I agree, they were manipulated, or more likely, they were outmanuevered after the fact. The Dems who voted against the IWR had it right. But most of them voted for it for the right reasons. Those who scream that they voted for the war miss the point. Their intention was otherwise.

As for the Senate being able to kill the IWR, yes, they could have, and in hindsight it looks like they should have, just to avoid the appearance of bipartisanship. But that wasn't the choice people saw at the time. Kerry, Clinton, et al, believed that killing the IWR meant war, and voting for the IWR meant a chance to avoid it. So for them, voting to withhold bipartisanship simply meant allowing the war for political gain. They were short-sighted, and under-estimated BushCo.

Another point is that there is a long-standing diplomatic tactic when it comes to foreign affairs. If you want to avoid a war, you have to convince the other side that you are willing to go to war, and are united in that desire, unless they comply. I assume you read Bill Clinton's comments on the matter in Ireland just before the invasion, where he blamed the French for making the war necessary, by giving Hussein hope that the invasion could be avoided. (Not Clinton's strongest moment, in my opinion, but it is typical of the basic mindset behind diplomatic use of war--and it worked for Clinton in Yugoslavia more than once, and in Haiti.)

So there was also that element to the IWR--to show a united front so Hussein would have to back down. Problem is, he had already backed down, and Bush knew it, but Bush was going to invade no matter what he did.

The biggest fault of the pro-IWR Dems is that they thought they could beat Bush. They could outmanuever him with subtle strategy, and hem him in with laws. That's part of why they passed the IWR. They assumed, too, that all the checks and balances would reveal if Bush were lying. They underestimated his willingness to lie, and his lack of caring whether he got caught.

They should have killed the IWR, and made Bush go it alone. I agree. That was my opinion before it was passed, too. But many of them had honest intentions voting for the IWR. That's not true of the Republicans. There's a world of difference between the parties.

[punpirate]

14. Your comment...

... "But most of them voted for it for the right reasons. Those who scream that they voted for the war miss the point. Their intention was otherwise" is logically fallacious and politically not supportable.

If you reread the comments of Democrats who voted for the IWR amendment, almost to an individual, they said that they were genuinely concerned about Iraq's ability to create nuclear weapons, which was based on fallacious evidence supplied by the Bush administration. Despite this evidence, nearly half of Democrats refused to be sucked in. Those who voted for the IWR weren't "right" to vote for the resolution. They were afraid to vote otherwise, and the false nuke evidence was their out to do so--even though nearly half their colleagues weren't convinced by the very same evidence.

That was an expedient political decision, not a rational one.

Look at the evidence. The war was based on lies. It was and is prosecuted badly. It should have been Bush's (and the Republicans') mistake alone. Democrats voting for the IWR made it everyone's problem.

What I am saying, simply, is that the Democrats voting for the IWR were self-deluded for what they perceived to be political exigency, and they involved the Democrats in what was a thoroughly neo-conservative plan. You may argue that they sought to somehow trap the President in a legal technicality because he did not seek a second UN resolution and completely comply with international law. If their intent was to frustrate the President in his plans, which would be simpler--voting for the President's plans and enabling his aims--or not voting for them from the start?

Absolute Democratic defiance of this President was called for the moment he stole the election in 2000. That has not happened. It's time to ask why, rather than make excuses for Democrats who have accommodated the President's aims out of a spirit of bi-partisanship.

Now, I'm much better read and informed than the average voter. I was certain, as far back as early September, 2002, with Bush's announcement that Iraq could mount an attack against the US in forty-five minutes, that he was lying about the need for war. If I can figure it out, why can't 50 US Senators? Those people had it in their power to stop Bush (and not just stop his ambitions for war). Why did they not?

Because they didn't want to. Now, the Republicans say of the opposition, you wanted this war, too. One can't argue with that, because the facts support it.

Here's the bald-faced truth. Twenty-eight Democrats in the Senate voted to let Bush do what he wanted. You can argue minutae and what they might have really intended, but voting against Bush's aims would have absolutely placed his determination for war in his lap. Voting for his resolution for war advanced his aims.

If you need any evidence that what I say is true, just look at how it's turned out. Some Democrats were smart enough to figure that out. Twenty-eight of them in the Senate either weren't smart enough to figure it out or actually agreed with Bush's aims. Any suggestion that their "yes" votes were intended to be a clever trap for Bush is horseshit.

Cheers.

[jobycom]

19. No, sorry

You can't listen to what politicians say. They couldn't vote for the IWR and then say "But we really don't support the invasion." That gives a mixed message to Iraq, and makes war more likely. Or at least in the mindset of most leaders it does. That's exactly what Bill Clinton said in Ireland. That's what the politicians in DC believe. They put on their stern faces to keep from giving a mixed message. That's SOP.

Yes, a lot of them believed what Bush was telling them. We were able to debunk his misinformation here, but Bush was showing them a lot more stuff than we saw. Randi Rhodes tells the story of her Congresscritter telling her over and over "Randi, if you could see what we in the Congress are seeing, you'd support it."

They were seeing a lot more than us. They were also being lied to, but the lies were more specific. It wasn't until after the IWR vote, even, that our side really began mobilizing the evidence against Bush's claims.

[never_get_over_it]

18. No it wasn't a vote for war

it was a vote for invasion. We can't justify the Dems who voted for this atrocity and we should stop it now. We all knew the freak in chief is a LIAR - the Senators who voted yes should have known or did know - they voted as they did for political cover and ambition and shame shame shame on them. And even if one could forgive them that vote - which I never will be able to do - where are they now - SILENT or actually recommending more troops. Many say we have to win this - well my question is when do we know we've won. The truth is the PNAC crowd has no intention of EVER leaving Iraq - where are the Dems who should be making this and issue. Have you ever heard one Dem leader even mention PNAC. How many Joe and Jane Americans do you think know about PNAC - and how would they respond - the crazy ones who think it is our God given right to control all the resources of the world would say yeah right on - the ones who have a glimmer of understanding that we don't have a God's given right to all the resources would feel pretty had by all the lame excuses for this invasion. Please, please, please make the Dems take responsibiltiy for this wrong vote and make up for it now by supporting an exit strategy - I know I'm making two calls tomorrow - one to Feingold to tell him to keep it up and one to Hillary to give it up.

Senators voting NO to IWR

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[DemInDistress]

9. I would like to know how Congress would have voted back in ..

October,2002.. giving The Bush Crime Family "Carte Blanche" to start a war.October 2002, those Downing Street Memo's were common knowledge
to the inner circle of the Crime Family,i.e. rice,wolfy,cheney,Carlyle
Its mentioned in July 23 2002 Blair was handed the DSM dossier, yet the Bush Crime Family with held vital behind the scenes documents relating to fixing faking forging and flat out lying about Saddam's wmd's program that are ready to kill Americans in 45 minutes..I laugh my ass when they promote that threat...
Its also why I believe bush wont meet Cindy,she wants bush to answer
Wmd's,DSM and Noble Cause..imagine,the motorcade slows to a stop,GWB
steps out and swaggers over to Cindy.Sheehan is overwhemled by the sudden meeting and asks george,is there any truth to the Downing Street Memo's? Bush stutters and says," "hom,hm,hem,ahem,hmm downing street memo's,glad you asked that mrs. sheehan.You see those memo's were taken out of context surely we hoped we could avoid military action but saddam "WAS A BAD MAN"..as for Noble Cause what the hell is noble about invading and occupying a country rich in OIL.
Bush-Cindy-DSM-Noble Cause...on camera no less !! That will be the Day...

[Cocoa]

16. 97% of republicans 39% of dems

[freeplessinseattle]

17. Thank you! The math is what I was looking for, striking contrast! n/t

[Roxy66]

20. Fear...plain and simple