What do Fred Barnes, Ed Gillespie, and Howard Fineman all have in common with a
Front Paged Diary posted over the weekend??
They all agree that a vote on IWR was a vote for the Iraq War.
I had thought this was debunked a year and half ago by Media Matters, but apparently it persists.
Barnes, executive editor of
The Weekly Standard, made the claim in an attempt to undermine National Public Radio national political correspondent (and FOX News Channel contributor) Mara Liasson's assertion that Senator John Kerry described his position on the war "very clearly" in his September 20 speech at New York University. Further, Barnes cast Kerry's position as "incoherent."
From the September 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume:
LIASSON: He [Kerry] said he would have voted for the resolution because the president deserves that authority. But in hindsight, knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would not have gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein. He said that very clearly. And he said [sic] because Bush says he would do everything the same way, even knowing now what --
BARNES: I know, but that's an incoherent position, because when you voted for that resolution, as everybody knew, you were voting for war. You weren't voting for what Kerry wanted. He [Kerry] was voting for war. That's what the resolution was about.
From the September 22 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: The point is, he did vote to authorize this and then he said and, I thought lamely, that, well, he didn't expect, he didn't expect the president to go about it the way he went about it. Well, what the heck did he think was going to happen?
FINEMAN: That doesn't hold up very well because everybody, everybody at the time knew precisely what that vote was for. It wasn't just for authorizing. It was for going because everybody knew that Bush was already aiming to go so that's what he voted for. There's no question about it.
Here's what Bush said on September 19, 2002, the day he sent the Iraq resolution to Congress:
QUESTION [asked during Oval Office photo opportunity]: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
BUSH: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.
It's a very intellectually lazy way to argue your point. "I know it to be true not cause I have any proof of it, or cause I've looked at what was actually said, or what the actual text of the resolution itself was, I know it to be true because... well... everybody knew it to be true." Well of course. but, for the fun of it, lets take a trip back through the wayback machine and try to remember what "everybody knew".
Wayback Machine
the lede:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Just for contrast lets pretend everybody knew a vote on IWR was a vote for war. Here is what the lede would have looked like if "everybody knew" it was a vote for war:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to attack Iraq unilaterally.
I guess Kucinich didn't know what "everybody knew" cause he said this:
But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."
Sheese, Dennis, don't you know that congress just decided NOT to do that??? not really.
Ok. Lets look at how former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie justified the "a vote on IWR was a vote for war" RNC talking point. In a way, to his credit, it's kind of admirable cause he avoids the "it's true cause eveybody knew it to be true" routine. Link
Q: Senator Kerry has argued there is a difference between voting to give the President authority and voting for a war. So isn't there a distinction?
GILLESPIE: I think that if you look at the debate in the Senate it was clearly understood this was a vote to remove Saddam Hussein to provide the President authority to remove Saddam Hussein from power, it was a vote for war. Senator Kerry himself said in fact in the debate over the gulf war in 1991 when a similar resolution was debated that "Let's all be clear about something a vote on a resolution like this is a vote for war." The same argument applied when the Iraq war resolution relative to implementing the policy of regime change with Saddam Hussein.
ok. debate in senate. what Kerry said when a "similiar resolution" was debated in 1991. ok. well lets look at that.
From floor speeches made from the floor of the Senate:
HRC:
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Kerry:
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
Now, well... duh! those are just Vichy Dems in CYA mode. no doubt. Ok. so lets look at a repug's statement on IWR. Hey Mr Warner. Is a vote on this resolution a vote for war??
Warner:
We are not declaring war. What we are about to do has the same depth of seriousness and the same depth of consequences to the men and women in the armed forces.
None of us wants to see our men and women in uniform committed to foreign battlefields. None of us seeks a war with Saddam Hussein. War, conflict is the last resort; that the strength and the resolve that we take now is the best way to avoid that conflict.
.....
The principal purpose of this resolution is to authorize our president to use military force if--if--he deems it necessary
.....
Now the Congress, as a coequal branch of government, must join our president and support the course that he has set. We have to demonstrate a resolve within our nation and internationally that communicates to Saddam Hussein a clear message that enough is enough. You are to be held accountable to the world law and order as enunciated in 16 resolutions--and possibly a 17th--of the United Nations. He has to be convinced that America and international resolve is real, unshakable and enforceable if there is to be a peaceful resolution.
But, if diplomacy fails, we must be prepared to act.
Nice try Ed. On the Senate Floor, the debate did NOT go like this: If you vote for this resolution, we're going to war.
The debate, on the senate floor, went like this: If you vote for this resolution we'll go to war ONLY IF diplomacy fails.
So what about those other "similiar" resolutions?? The Iraq War Resolution is often compared to the Persian Gulf War Resolution and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Persian Gulf War Resolution:
Whereas the international community has demanded that Iraq withdraw unconditionally and immediately from Kuwait and that Kuwait's independence and legitimate government be restored; and
Whereas the U.N. Security Council repeatedly affirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in response to the armed attack by Iraq against Kuwait in accordance with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter; and
Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and
Whereas Iraq has persisted in its illegal occupation of, and brutal aggression against, Kuwait: Now, therefore be it
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked United States naval vessels lawfully present in international waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international peace; and
.....
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
There is actually a very striking difference between these two resolutions and the Iraq War Resolution. These two resolutions asserted,.. in very clear terms... that diplomacy had failed. The failure of diplomacy was a pre-condition of the Gulf of Tonkin, and the Persian Gulf Resolutions. So one would have had every reason to believe that voting for those resolutions was a vote for war.
The failure of diplomacy was NOT a stipulated condition of the Iraq War Resolution. It's not what "everyone knew". The notion that diplomacy had failed was NEVER offered on the Senate Floor. This is why a vote on IWR was not a vote for war.
If Framing is 90% of the battle, then to concede that a vote on IWR was a vote for war is to concede this debate entirely to the Right Wing Echo Machine. Maybe we can support the Right Wing Echo Machine and self-flaggelate ourselves into electoral victory. I don't think so. But hey. Whatever works.