A general theme has emerged to justify Democratic support for the Iraq war. No one could argue that vital information was withheld and what was offered was manipulated. However, does the administration's manipulation absolve our representatives or are the recent mea culpas dishonest revisionism? This
American Prospect piece offers some food for thought.
Admitting a mistake is a positive development, however I am still not convinced of the reasoning offered. I struggle with the fact that we commoners were able to decipher this ruse, while our elected caretakers were so easily complicite. If Democrats only had partial information to form their opinions, I would argue that we had even less, which makes these votes so much more confounding. During the entire buildup to war, there was such an obvious pungent stench surrounding it, that simple "I believed the President" contritions remain woefully inadequate.
Some context:
Way back in early October 2002, in the days leading up to the vote on the war resolution, Florida Senator Bob Graham, then the chairman of the Intelligence Committee,
already was publicly warning fellow Democrats that Bush and Cheney were withholding intelligence critical to evaluating the administration's claims about Iraq...
There are many other examples. There were the extraordinary public statements by chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix in late January 2003. Blix directly attacked a host of Bush claims -- the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda ties, the charge that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, and so on - many of which were supposedly backed up by intelligence. Given that Blix was hardly a Saddam appeaser, any Dem would have known his assessment was credible. Then came the mind-boggling admission by the British government that an intelligence report on Iraq -- one cited approvingly at the time by Colin Powell -- had been cribbed from magazines and academic journals, some of them years old. Then there were the infamous revelations that documents supposedly showing that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger had been forged. And on and on.
So what? Old news, let's move on and work on the positive going forward. The problem is the reasoning offered so far doesn't absolve this monumental blunder. I want admissions that take responsibility and offer honest motives, instead of simply blaming Bush out of political convenience. Did you think the war would be an "easy victory" and wanted to be on the winning side? Were you intimidated by a popular administration under the veil of 9/11?
One line of justification that no one has mentioned and has merit, although not excusable, is the issue of leverage. At the time of this vote, Saddam and Bush were in the midst of a complicated dance. It is widely held that Saddam felt the American threats were much bluster. Saddam believed that Americans had little stomach for such messiness and seemed to act accordingly. This vote to give authorization could be construed as a concrete measure to call Saddam's bluff. A dangerous game, but one meant to apply further pressure, with the hope of eventual appeasement. If this was a particular Senator's reasoning, I would like to hear it because it far more credible a justification than simple "Bush lied" lines. You could easily argue, and I would agree, that it was mistake to use such a powerful weapon as leverage, but at least it is logical.
Here is the point:
It's crucial that at this moment of national introspection, Democrats reckon honestly with their own conduct during the lead-up to what has become a foreign-policy disaster of monumental proportions. It would give their current critique of the administration's pre-war conduct maximum credibility, which is exactly what it needs and deserves.
Taking personal responsibility, instead of deflecting blame onto easy targets, would serve as an honest admission that deserves acknowledgment. So far, my learned cynicism sees continued political motivation, based on personal consideration, rather than a factual admission. So, I am not "moving on" and offering support to people who made such a massive blunder that will haunt us for decades. It was your monumental moment, when people were warned by some that saw the gravity:
Senator Byrd: "This is a blank check, congress is ceding, lock, stock and barrel, its power to declare war - handing it over to a chief executive. Congress might as well just shut the door and put a sign up there that says, 'Going fishing.'"
We were abandoned, and a simple "sorry, Bush screwed me" doesn't cut it and I doubt history will be kind, revisionism aside. There are pivotal moments in everyone's life that speak to character and they are never soon forgotten, no matter what side of an aisle. Your role was a check, instead you gave a blank one. Fool me once...
