It's an old beef but I still see it, and I still get riled up, when I hear people describe the October 2002 pre-Iraq War vote in Congress as a vote "for the war". This is a mischaracterization. John Kerry should have stopped it dead in it's tracks, but he didn't, and it likely cost him the Presidency. This is historical revisionism.
(do I really need to say? look under the fold)
Many times people say that the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) "voted for the Iraq war", because they were lied to.
I was alive way back in the fall of 2002. The vote was clearly presented as a way to put pressure on the Iraq to come clean about any possible WMD programs. It wasn't presented as a vote for war...it was sold to the public, and Congress, as a way to put up a united front to avoid war. With the resolution in place we could get the UN Security Council to rally behind us.
Sure they were lied to, but the biggest lie was that everything was being done to make war only as the last option.
From 10/10/02 NYT...
"In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.
''I will vote yes,'' said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, ''because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.''
Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.
''Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions,'' Mr. Hagel said. ''Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force.'"
From the New York Times 10/12/2002...
"President Bush moved today to use a vote in Congress giving him overwhelming support to attack Iraq as leverage to push for a tough new United Nations resolution forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm...
...Congressional leaders said their vote and days of debate reflected a sentiment that military action was not a first but a last option...
...Republicans were solidly in the president's camp, with some noting that they acted to put pressure on the United Nations. ''Only if Saddam understands that we are prepared to use military force will a peaceful means of disarming him have any chance to succeed,'' said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine."
From the same article, a prescient quote from Sen. Feinstein.
''I continue to have concerns that there are those in the administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq,'' said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who had earlier expressed reservations about the Iraq policy but ended up voting for it. ''I believe this would be a terrible mistake.''
To call this vote a vote "for war" is revisionism. The problem was too many people trusted that Bush wanted to avoid war.