...We Won’t Give You The Authorization You Seek to Go To War".
While I was researching information for a recent diary I was nagged by a question: If current rabble-rouser du jour, Chuck Hagel, was hesitant about the war before it started why the hell did he vote for it? It turns out he was just being a good little republican lapdog; respecting the Office of the President while ignoring the nagging thoughts that going to Iraq was a terrible mistake. Coward.
My question: Shouldn’t Senators be judging whether the person occupying that office deserves respect instead of reflexively offering up respect to an office? I suppose I’ll never understand the political culture in Washington, DC.
Anyway, this curiosity expanded to include other Senators and what was going on in their minds before they were rushed into the decision to give President Bush the blank check pre-authorization to send troops into Iraq.
I knew the buildup to Iraq was a bunch of bullshit. I knew the reasons for it were flimsy and questionable. The only thing I didn’t know was how utterly and completely BushCo were going to screw the pooch in Iraq; not that a preemptive war isn’t messed up to begin with. However, I’ve never witnessed such profound and consistent incompetence. These guys are masters of the clusterf*ck.
So while it certainly doesn’t surprise me that the republicans would toe the party line, my questions for Democrats who voted for the Authorization of Military Force was a resounding WTF?!?.
I remember the day after the vote sitting in the dining room reading the paper. "Dumb mother..." I remember feeling stunned and furious at the majority of Democrats for casting such a stupid vote. .
But what of those who weren’t "Dumb mother..."? At the time I didn’t care, I was just pissed off that anyone gave that level of power to an obvious putz.
With what’s going on lately and the silly season of ’08 starting early I went on the hunt for quotes from what I found out was 23 brave souls after stumbling upon this website.
What I found was illuminating and damning.
Note: The quotes below were gathered through a variety of websites including the webpages of the politicians, but the best source I found was Liberated Text under the The Authorization of Force.
Preventative meta: Please note, I am only covering the following Senator’s vote on this one issue. I don’t care if they have been dicks or dweebs in other respects. I don’t care if they voted for something insidious at another time, or that they never return your phone calls, or feed your cat, or always leave the toilet seat up, or squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle, or hum annoying show tunes while you’re watching "Buffy" reruns. Just saying.
Here are some of their thoughts, before or after the AUMF vote giving Bush carte blanche to go to war.
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
In Oct. 2002, I was one of 23 Senators who opposed the authorization of force in Iraq. Because I felt that Bush's proposal did not have correct information. I was on a committee that was studying it for two years, and we did not find any Weapons of Mass Destruction there. I was looking for a post-war strategy. It wasn't there. Now I'm calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by July 2007. We must put pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own security.
"Only after we exhaust all of our alternative means should we engage in the use of force, and before then, the president must ensure we have a strategy and plans in place for winning the war and building the peace."
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
I voted against the resolution to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq because I was highly concerned about the quality of the administration's pre-war intelligence and because I had doubts about the administration's plan for dealing with Iraq's stability and security after toppling Saddam Hussein.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California)
I believe the people of my state expect me, on their behalf, to get my questions and their questions answered, not to engage in guesswork and above all not to abdicate my responsibility to the Executive Branch. If our Founders wanted the President, any President, to have the power to go to war, they would have said so.
Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
In addition to questioning the intelligence of going to war with Iraq Senator Byrd was unique in focusing attention on the abdication of constitutional responsibility.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. February 2002
Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a very important resolution. The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security.
Ultimately, Congress must decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this Nation to war. Deciding questions of war is a heavy burden for every Member of Congress. It is the most serious responsibility imposed on us by the Constitution. We should not shrink from our duty to provide authority to the President where action is needed. But just as importantly, we should not shrink from our constitutional duty to decide for ourselves whether launching this Nation into war is an appropriate response to the threats facing our people--those people looking, watching this debate through that electronic lens there. They are the ones who will have to suffer. It is their sons and daughters whose blood will be spilled. Our ultimate duty is not to the President. They say: Give the President the benefit of the doubt. Why, how sickening that idea is. Our ultimate duty is not to the President of the United States. I don't give a darn whether he is a Democrat or Republican or an Independent--whatever. It makes no difference. I don't believe that our ultimate duty is to him. Our ultimate duty is to the people out there who elected us.
If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown together, it was a cut-and-paste operation.
Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the doors and say: "Going fishing." Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty up here: "Out of business." That is exactly, that is precisely what we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this resolution. All the "whereases" constitute nothing more than figleaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty figleaves, with sugar on them.
Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island)
The only Republican to vote NO.
Looking back on the 2002 vote, Chafee now says he has had what he considers "torturous votes," but "this wasn’t one of them."
"I never had any wavering on this," he said.
Skeptical of Saddam’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, Chafee took a private trip to Langley, Va., to meet with CIA officials for a briefing in the summer of 2002 as Bush was making his case for war.
"I was completely unconvinced" by the briefing, he said.
Chafee said he never believed the Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he said, "It was this grand vision of changing the Middle East.
Senator Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous."
Which brings me to my final point. If our goal is to topple Saddam, what is our responsibility for the regime that follows:
Forming a new government in Iraq is far from simple. There is no clear successor to Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a country filled with competing ethnic groups and religious and tribal factions with no history of democracy.
I do not want to see our forces mired in a long occupation, in dangerous territory, in a destabilized region, subject to violence within Iraq. I do not want to see the United States responsible for the stability of Iraq, the economy of Iraq, and the political future of that nation.
Senator Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Regrettably, the Bush administration chose to preemptively attack Iraq in 2003 without justifying such an action -- before a multilateral approach had been devised, and without taking into account the long-term security concerns associated with an occupation. As a member of the United States Senate, I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq for each of these reasons.
Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Well, I voted against the Iraq War. I was one of 23 to vote against it at a time when public opinion in Minnesota was running 85 percent in favor in support of the president taking us to war. That was a time I stood relatively alone based on the courage of my own convictions. And that time I was definitely vindicated by the outcome, as much as I hate to say that.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
When I saw the resolution that President Bush sent us last week, that is not his intention, that is not his design. If you think that trip to the United Nations was an appeal to that body to move forward and do things, it might have been, but, frankly, his resolution he sent to us basically says: Ignore my speech; ignore my visit to the United Nations; ignore the United Nations; give me the authority to do it by myself.
"I felt then as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the President had not made his case for that war, and certainly had not demonstrated that we were prepared to go in effectively and win quickly," he says. "Without a broad coalition, without the support of other nations, we ran the risk of what we're currently facing, which is an intractable conflict with no end in sight."
Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's arguments do not add up. They do not add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before the Senate.
Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida)
From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
The American people and our allies gave President Bush their wholehearted support in the war on terrorism after September 11. They cheered our efforts to remove Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government from Afghanistan. A year after we commenced that war, action in Afghanistan has ground to a virtual halt. Osama bin Laden remains at large, and we have not moved aggressively beyond Afghanistan to take on the cells of al-Qaida operatives in other parts of the world.
We also know of sanctuaries, training camps where the next generation of terrorists are being trained and that those sanctuaries are going unattacked.
With sadness, I predict we will live to regret on this day, October 10, 2002, we stood by, and we allowed those terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows. It may be days, weeks, months, or years before they strike Americans again, but they will, and we will have allowed them to grow that capability.
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
"I'm concerned about the security of this country," Inouye said. "I'm concerned about what history will say about this nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize people, or did we carry on ourselves as civilized people?"
"To attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as something that we should not be proud of."
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
I have heard nothing that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.
I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our Nation internationally and stir up greater hatred of America. This cycle will generate more enemies, while undercutting our support from a broad coalition of allies--coalitions that have proven to be the hallmark of all successful peacemaking efforts in recent years.
We owe it to the American people not to rush into a war, but to work with the institutions that we fought so hard to develop for just this eventuality. If multilateral efforts fail, then the President should come back to Congress for consideration of the next course of action. I cannot support a resolution that puts this Nation on a path to war without first exhausting diplomatic efforts. Now is the time to put the international system to work for us, and consider unilateral military action only as a last resort.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
"Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture," Kennedy said. "There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response."
With all the talk of war, the administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
The President says war is a last resort. If he feels that way, why do he and his advisers want so desperately to short circuit the inspections process? Why is he so anxious to spend billions of dollars to buy the cooperation of friends who do not yet believe war is necessary? Why is he so unconcerned about the predictable, hostile reaction of the Muslim world to the occupation of Iraq, perhaps for years, by a U.S. military "government"? Why is the President so determined to run roughshod over our traditional alliances and partnerships, which have served us well and whose support we need both today and in the future?
I have said before that this war is not inevitable, and I still believe it can be avoided. But I fear that the President, despite opposition among the American people, in the UN, and around the world, is no longer listening to anyone except those within his inner circle who are eager to fight. I hope the Iraqi Government comes to its senses. I hope we do not walk away from the United Nations. I hope we do not decide that just because our troops are there we cannot afford to wait.
"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to. This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.
"We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war."
"The key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous [Gulf of Tonkin] resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before.
No Congress should pass a blank check and let any administration fill in the amount later. The resolution proposed by the Administration is overly broad, makes no mention of the efforts to build an international coalition at the United Nations, and is premature.
Note: I think I love Leahy.
Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Initiating a war on the basis of faulty or exaggerated intelligence is a very serious matter. That's just as true if one supported the war or not. And that's just as true if Iraq ultimately turns out to be a stable democracy, which we all hope and pray that it does.
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
"Regrettably, he's stifling questions about war-policy issues, especially about Iraq,"
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, said Bush's resolution is "overly broad" and would give him "carte blanche" to do anything he wants to in the region. "Does Saddam Hussein have the nuclear weapons - not does he plan to have them, but does he have them now? We have to ask these questions," Mikulski said.
I recognize that I will likely be in the minority on this vote. The Senate and House of Representatives will probably grant the President the broad authority he now seeks.
I will vote differently than the majority, but I want my constituents, particularly our men and women in uniform, to know that I believe my vote represents the wisest, most prudent course with them in mind.
America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will always have my full and steadfast support. I stand accountable to the oath I took to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I hold myself accountable to my constituents, and I am prepared to defend this vote because I think when history is written, it would have been wiser not to give authority to go it alone right now.
Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the Administration established a solution -- going to war -- before it defined the problem or the goal.
Today we are being told we have no choice that we have to grant the president war-making authority immediately without knowing the ultimate goal or the ultimate cost and without knowing whether we're going it alone.
The constituents I hear from want to know:
Why are we racing to take this action right now, alone, with so many questions unanswered?
The administration could answer those questions with clear, compelling facts and goals, but so far we have not heard them.
We are being asked to endorse a policy that has not been thought out, and one that could have dramatic consequences for our citizens and our future.
While we may need to take action in Iraq down the road, today I cannot support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill- defined, solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered.
Senator Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Acting alone will increase the risk to our forces and to our allies in the region. Acting alone will increase the burden that we must bear to restore stability in the region. Acting alone will invite the criticism and animosity of many throughout the world who will mistakenly dismiss our efforts as entirely self-serving. Acting alone could seriously undermine the structure of collective security that the United States has labored for decades to make effective. Acting alone today against the palpable evil of Saddam may set us on a course, charted by the newly announced doctrine of preemption, that will carry us beyond the limits of our power and our wisdom.
For these reasons, I will vote against the Lieberman-Warner resolution granting the President the permission to take unilateral military action against Iraq regardless of the immediacy of the threat. And I will support the resolution proposed by Senator Levin.
"All along, there has been this division within the Administration between those who see Iraq as something that has to be done regardless of the costs and those who ask, 'What are the costs?' It's almost schizophrenic, and Bush is caught in the middle."
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.
Senator Debbie Stabenow
"Before we engage in war, we must understand [that] the results of war are irrevocable, and peaceful solutions should always be our first choice . . . The President proposes to change a policy that has been in place since the founding of our country, that we do not invade sovereign countries without direct provocation."
I didn't vote to go to Iraq, because it was a war of choice, not a necessity. I've been to Iraq - they are brave soldiers who deserve more than a slogan - they need a strategy.
Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
"Despite a desire to support our president, I believe many Americans still have profound questions about the wisdom of relying too heavily on a pre-emptive go-it-alone military approach," Wellstone said. "Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting sensibly, in a measured way in concert with our allies, with bipartisan Congressional support, would be a sign of our strength."
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
<blockquoteThere is no question in my mind Saddam Hussein represents a very real threat to this country and to the world, but I do not want to, in the days ahead, compound the problems we already face with Hussein in the region by authorizing a unilateral, preemptive military strike at this time, and that is why I will oppose the resolution. </blockquote>
While Iraq has aided terrorism for many years, there are any number of regimes who have aided terrorism, including some with far more direct links to Osama bin Laden's network of terror. In this regard, I note the first conclusion in the Central Intelligence Agency's declassified letter to Chairman Bob Graham of Florida dated October 7 of this year which states that at present, Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States.
Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict.
These 23 Senators did the right thing. They found the evidence lacking and they put the welfare of the country above their personal political considerations. So to them and the 133 House members who voted NO, I salute you.
After reading these and other quotes, I can now honestly say that there was no justification for any Democrat to vote in favor of giving Bush such unprecedented power.
"I trusted the President to do the right thing." is a weak excuse. Why on earth would you trust the guy who not only allowed 9/11 to happen on his watch, but went on to exploit that tragedy for political gain?
As Senator Byrd noted, "This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal." Did you disagree with Senator Byrd’s assessment? Were they doing a heckuva job as far as you were concerned?
"He lied to us." Well, obviously some of your colleagues were well aware of the holes in the story. It doesn’t say much for you that you didn’t.
"I only gave him the ability to wage war if all other avenues of diplomacy were exhausted." Then you were a fool. They were stampeding for war and you’re shocked? Please.
As Robert Byrd observed, "I wonder what has gotten into our Democratic leaders that they would embrace this kind of thing. "
I know what got into our Democratic leaders – Political expediency and ass covering. Cowardice. Fear. Laziness. But worse, they took a gamble and the world will suffer for decades because of that miscalculation.
Oh sure, Bush probably would have waged his "little cakewalk" war anyway. But at least if a majority of the Democrats in the House and, especially, the Senate had voted NO they would not be forever tainted by this vote. They wouldn’t be apologizing for it or trying to spin their way around it. This is an excellent example why Senators generally do not make good presidential candidates.
Perhaps someone can try and convince me otherwise, but I just can’t accept that the Democrats who voted Yes to ceding this unprecedented power to Bush couldn’t have known that the evidence was lacking and that there was no plan beyond Shock & Awe. I have difficulty accepting that they were completely satisfied that the questions listed above by their colleagues had been successfully answered by the Administration. This is not 20/20 hindsight here. They all had access to much of the same information, but apparently other political considerations got in the way of doing the right thing. Either that or they are dumber than a box of rocks.
Because of the bravery of these 23 Senators and the 133 members of the House who said NO, I have decided that anyone who voted to trust George Bush to do the right thing can not be trusted to lead this country at this perilous time. It was a rush to war – reasonable people should have viewed it with skepticism and proceeded with extreme caution, damn the political consequences. 23 of them were obviously able to accomplish this oversight.
Whatever the reasons, whatever the excuses, the passage of Joint Resolution 114 led to the ruin of this country’s reputation, her security, and her financial stability. The passage of JR-114 led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the maiming of thousands more, and left an untold number of lives forever ruined. I have no doubt that vote also contributed to the obscene power grabs and hubris of the Bush Administration that is still in evidence today.
Those Senators who voted YES gave Bush a blank check and not only did he cash it but he made forgeries of the original and has been pawning them off on America and her people ever since.
When you are about to do something as consequential as sending other people’s sons and daughters onto the battlefield some things should be inviolable:
The decision you make must not be rushed for any reason other than an immediate threat.
The information used in making such a decision must be complete; the goals must be set out and must make sense.
The people you are sending must be well equipped and supported.
If there is any question about the veracity of the information; any question that your decision is being rushed for purposes other than an immediate threat; any question that the goals are realistic; any doubt, any doubt at all in your mind at all as to the intelligence of plunging ahead based on what you know, the only correct thing to say is, "No, Mr. President, I will not give you the authorization you seek to go to war."
Yes, it was that important to be damned f*cking sure.
Knowing what I know now about the thought processes of those who showed political courage in the face of overwhelming orchestrated warmongering, that YES vote was unforgivable in the realm of national politics. I cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate running for the Office of President of the United States who voted YES for Joint Resolution 114 on October 11, 2002.
It wasn’t as important when I didn’t have this information, but it’s that damned important to me now.
But that’s just my opinion – your mileage may vary.