By buying into the GOP spinmeisters' rewriting of history around the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, Democrats are legitimizing Bush's war and soiling our own nest.
The Congressional resolution the President signed on October 16, 2002 was designed to be a weapon in the GOP propaganda arsenal to make the President look good and Democrats to look bad by either co-opting their support of a to-be-announced-later war, if it went badly; or by painting them as "soft on national defense" if they voted against it and the war went well. The very ambiguities in the resolution work to the GOP’s favor and, as we see, are being used against Democrats sometimes by other Democrats! The actual run-up to the war is a witch’s brew of misinformation, fabrications, distortions and deceptions; therefore, characterizing the vote for or against this resolution as some litmus test for Democrats by Democrats is an act of political insanity giving legitimacy to Bush’s illegal war.
Read the resolution! The resolution did not authorize a war! The "military force" it authorized the use of, could have been used in a number of ways short of an all-out invasion of Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein. Rather than ordering the President to take the country to war, the resolution simply sets forth the rules and conditions upon which military force could be used if such was "necessary and appropriate" to "protect our national security" and "enforce UN Security Council Resolutions," neither of which required the invasion of Iraq. Conventional wisdom and partisan rhetoric, however, almost consistently references it as the "Iraq War Resolution." (Senator Joe Biden, just this morning, on Meet the Press, was asked why he "voted for the war." Tim Russert should know better than to be suckered into the GOP spin!)
In fact, at the time of the debate, plans for a war were nowhere to be seen. Indeed, the President had recently held a bi-partisan photo-op with Democratic leaders where he talked about "listening to the American people" and was still talking about negotiating for a peaceful settlement. Secretary of State Collen Powell, two months earlier, on the Nightline program, had said that "the President has no plans to invade Iraq on his desk at this moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him." [We now know in great detail the extent of the administration’s lies and distortions but we have to hold Congress accountable for what it knew then not what we all know now. Likewise this resolution must be viewed in the context of what was public knowledge in 2002 not five years later.]
So, if the White House was actually planning a war why did it not ask for a declaration of war – that, after all, is Congress’ job? The answer cannot be to preserve an element of surprise because the attack was advertised like a Hollywood movie premiere. There are a number of reasons that can be discussed at a different time, but what is germane to our discussion today, is that, for all its other reasons, its residual consequence is that it has created a wedge issue that is being used against Democrats by Republicans and against Democrats by other Democrats almost five years later. Such nonsense! My advice to all Democrats is to not give George Bush cover for his illegal war in order to win political points for your candidate. That is too high a price to pay to win the nomination.