:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Friday, October 29, 2004 ::

Revisting the Iraq War Vote

My blogs have been sparse recently. I have had to take a break from the political season because this year has been too surreal. Bush likes to say that everybody had the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion on Iraq. He uses Congress' vote authorizing him to use military force against Iraq if necessary as a linch pin in his defense. The Senate vote to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraq if necessary was 77-23. The House voted 296 to 133 to give Bush auhtorization. In other words, 156 out of 535 congressmen and women voted against giving Bush the authorization. Why? Here is an article from the New york Times describing the House and Senate votes:

Senate Passes Iraq Resolution 77 to 23

Alison Mitchell and Carl Hulse New York Times October 11, 2002The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.
WASHINGTON, Friday, Oct. 11 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein. The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night.
The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that "the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally." He added, "The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end." While the votes in favor of the resolutions were large and bipartisan, they highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic party over how and when to use force. This was particularly true in the House. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the House minority leader, put his weight behind the force authorization, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than for it, splitting 126 to 81. Only 6 Republicans opposed it.

The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that Iraq would imminently develop nuclear potential, fears that military action would take away from the war on terrorism, and sentiment against war among constituents.

In the Senate, as the debate stretched on, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who called the vote "probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make." Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations "more likely and, therefore, war less likely."

Other Democrats, like Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, were determined to vote against the measure, saying there were still many questions about how a war would be waged, what its costs would be and how long it would last. "We have very little understanding about the full implications in terms of an exit strategy," Mr. Kennedy told reporters.

In the end, the Senate Democrats split, with 29 for and 21 against the measure. One Republican and one independent opposed it. Most Republicans stood behind the president, including Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy. Despite his differences with Mr. Bush on the issue, Mr. Armey closed the House debate with a plea for authorizing force. Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war.
"Mr. President," he said, "we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, 'Sleep soundly, my baby.' " He choked up and walked out of the House chamber.

The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democratic dissidents who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments. Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

He alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at least 25% of Congress had misgivings about Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people marched through the streets of nation prior to the war. With this in mind where was the due diligence on Iraq? You had folks begging Bush not to rush into the war, to think the situation through. But alas, that was too much to ask. Now we are paying for Bush's foolishness in treasure and blood.



Email address is: militant.one@att.net
I read all responses. I will post responses along with my reply. Watch raw language. Remember Michael Powell runs the FCC.

:: DM1 10/29/2004 03:11:00 AM [+] ::
...