Obama Is Right: We All Knew What The Vote Was About

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 14:17


In his speech today on Iraq, Barack Obama echoes something that has always pissed me off: claims that the AUMF against Iraq in 2002 wasn't actually a vote on whether or not to go to war with Iraq. From the speech:

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002.

This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?

I really, truly, and deeply despise the claim from some Democrats, including Kerry in 2004 and Clinton more recently, that the vote back in 2002 wasn't about going to war with Iraq. After months of a drumbeat to war with Iraq, and especially after the House vote a few weeks earlier, anyone who actually believed the authorization to use military force was not about authorizing the war itself is simply delusional. And no, I can't put it any nicer than that. For starters, it was called A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. If that isn't explicit enough for you, Section Three of the legislation stated the following:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Let me summarize. After several months of arguing around the nation that Iraq needed to be invaded, the Senate voted on legislation entitled "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," which stated that "[t]he President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." It that clear enough?

To argue that this vote was not about authorizing the war is to leave the reality-based community on Iraq. Period. Obama is absolutely right on this one.

Chris Bowers :: Obama Is Right: We All Knew What The Vote Was About

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Is Right: We All Knew What The Vote Was About | 26 comments
Same Here (0.00 / 0)
Yea, this drives me up the wall.  I, sitting in my little abode in Charleston, West Virginia, understood it was a vote for war.  How could the congresscritters who voted on it not know?

Lest one thinks I was just being conspiratorial at the time, let me bring up two things.  First, summer of 2002, after a meeting with Pres. Bush, King Hussein says that the Administration had already determined to go to war no matter what.  Sorry I dont have a link for that, but I know he said it.  Why in the world would he say something like that unless Bush told him?  Second, Cheney essentially said we're going to war, in September I think it was.  Again, I dont have a link, but if you look through Time Magazine's great archives, you will see the coverage of what I mean.

There was no doubt in my mind based on these guys statements that the "die was cast," we were going to war.  The only thing I thought at the time could stop going to war was if Sadam just left voluntarily.  Now, according to the statements of what Bush apparently told the Spanish PM, even that would not have done it.

It's Simple, Really (0.00 / 0)
Yea, this drives me up the wall.  I, sitting in my little abode in Charleston, West Virginia, understood it was a vote for war.  How could the congresscritters who voted on it not know?

I hear ya, borther.  I felt exactly the same way.  But I also know that there's more going on here.  In fact, it's the other way around. It was so easy for us to see precisely because we weren't in the thick of things in Versailles.

It's like the old saying goes:  We don't know who first discovered water.  We only know that it wasn't a fish.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I remember very well (0.00 / 0)
that although it was an authorization to go to war it was sold as not a green light to go to war but as a statement with teeth so that Bush could go to the UN and force inspections and uphold sanctions. If those two things were actually done the there would have been no reason to go to war. No one expected Bush to pull the inspectors before they were through.  And had they been allowed to finish we would not be where we are today.

Bottomline is that Bush had not shown his war-like ways up to that point and some people trusted him based on his word. They now know that he betrayed that trust.

People here are forgetting that the whole premise of the AUMF was to get UN inspections. It was after that when Bush started to play his shell game with us and the UN in trying to get them to authorize a war.

[ Parent ]
And Don't Forget, People Thought That Saddam Was THE Stubborn Asshole Then (0.00 / 0)
Remember that at the time, people fully expected that Saddam would be the one to precipitate a war by refusiing to let the inspectors return.  So they really did think that a very serious threat was needed.

Most folks had really not paid enough attention yet to realize how similar Saddam and Bush were to one another.  Of course 100 executions should have given them some idea. 

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
Most folks had really not paid enough attention yet to realize how similar Saddam and Bush were to one another.  Of course 100 executions should have given them some idea.

Yeah Bush would love to be Pakistan's Musharraf. Or better yet rule Burmah.

[ Parent ]
Sorry To Say, I Disagree (0.00 / 0)
I certainly agree that that's how it looked from where I stood.  But let's not forget how much effort was put into denying that this is what it meant.  It was presented as a needed show of unity and support, so that Bush would have credibility in threatening use of force.  And this just over 1 year after 9/11, when people were still desperately clinging to the hope that he really was trying to be "a uniter, not a divider."

Now it was certianly ludicrous in my books.  But, then I thought his election as Governor of Texas back 1994 was ludicrous, so my position was not exactly representative of anything, other than actually paying attention--an extreme minority position, to say the least.

My point here is that there were both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for being fooled.  And since the same dynamic runs throughout the entire Bush era--and, indeed, runs much, much deeper than Bush himself, so it's not about to vanish with him--I think it's important for us to be able to distinguis between the two.  Of course the legitimate reasons are routinely used as fig-leaves for the illegitimate ones, so we're under no obligation to take the word of people pleading on their own behalf.  But we can look at their actions in toto in order to judge how specific bad decisios--such as voting for the AUMF--ought to be judged.

Don't forget, there was another key vote, on which Barbara Lee was only person in the world who voted right.

If we can fairly accept legitimate reasons why others voted wrong on that one, the same principle should apply to the AUMF vote as well.

I'm saying that anyone necessarily qualifies.  I'm only saying that we must, in all honesty, hold open that possibility.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Is it all about getting "fooled"? (0.00 / 0)
"My point here is that there were both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for being fooled. "

What percentage of the US Congress could be so easily fooled, when alternative analyses of the intelligence were also in circulation?  If they are that guilible - why are they in Congress, anyway?

What about those who were not fooled by Mr. Bush or his dog-n-pony show?  I'm fairly certain that one, or more, of the Democrats that voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq  did so in a calculating way - not because Bush and the Right Wing Media Echo Chamber was capable of "tricking" them.

They looked at the 60-70% approval in public polls at the time and calculated that they should hedge their bets if they wanted to consider running for President in 2004 or 2008.  If Bush was somehow, against all odds, successful in Iraq - they wanted to be on the winning side of a popular issue.  If, as they might have suspected, Bush was wrong and the endeavor turned into a quagmire - they could bail out and try to spin the issue in their favor.

No foolishness needed - just politics as usual.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
We Agree Much More Than You Realize (0.00 / 0)
For example, I agree 100% with this:

I'm fairly certain that one, or more, of the Democrats that voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq  did so in a calculating way - not because Bush and the Right Wing Media Echo Chamber was capable of "tricking" them.

As I said:

My point here is that there were both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for being fooled.

I also agree that a whole lot of people in Congress wanted to be fooled, or at least didn't care to look too critically.

I'm just saying that there remains a more complex set of questions to be answered for some.  For others, not so much.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Care to make an estimate? (0.00 / 0)
While we agree on the surface questions and issues, I think we may have a different view on how many of the Democrats that supported Bush on the AUMF were making shrewd (even if ultimately wrong) political calculations, and how many be either "fooled" outright, or by choice.

Now, if you are equating a political calculation that includes  pretending to be fooled with "wanting to be fooled", then we may truly have no difference in view point.  I don't equate those because to do so accepts the "I made a mistake" frame, which is not, in my mind, as accurate as the "I made a poor political calculation" frame.

Which is the case is critically important because it tells one how to prevent such actions by the particular person in the future.  If its just a matter of paying more attention, or reading pertinent reports such as the NIE, or whatever - that's one thing.  But if the reason is attempting to construe events so as to further one's chances in future elections, that is a horse of another color.  The former can be taken care of with communication with the person (and/or staff), and other direct appeals that will keep the issue front and center. The latter is more complex and how one responds, likely depends upon whether or not they support the candidate in question, or their own political priorities.

So, what do you think?  What percentage of the Democrats that supported AUMF did so on the basis of political calculation, and how many did so because they either believed the stories about WMD, etc, or were too busy with other issues to take a hard look at the issue?

I suppose we should be kind and add a third option: how many voted that way because they actually thought that this was a responsible and just way to truly combat the forces produced the 9/11 attacks?

Calculating Politician  -  Fool  -  Thoughtful Patriot

Split 'em up. On this particular vote.  Democrats only. Anyway to base this on fact?

My picks: (70, 20, 10)



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
We weren't fooled about War (0.00 / 0)
The only thing we were being "fooled" about was whether there was WMD. We were never fooled that the vote was about anything else than going to War, and after the outcome is wasn't a matter of it we were going to go, only when and who would join with us.  And that's what the speech is about and the condemnation was about, and what we must keep our eye on.

I assume the Barbara Lee vote you are referring about is the vote on whether to invade Afghanistan which was directly tied to the attacks of 9/11.  To confuse those issues now is as wrong as it was to confuse them back in late 2002.  If that is the vote you are referring about, I vehemently disagree the same principle applies.  One is responding to a direct attack, the other authorizing a preemptive strike.

[ Parent ]
Sorry I just read this post of yours (0.00 / 0)
after I posted to you above. We are in complete agreement.
[ Parent ]
Yes, they knew (0.00 / 0)
Most did. Some, like Kerry, gave speeches indicating that they expected Bush to come back for war authorization, as they were using this to force inspections. But must we ever look backwards?

It irritates me far more that many ignored Jim Webb's warning about the Kyl-Lieberman bill. Our forst task now is to prevent THAT war. Not a single expert claims Iran could have a nuke for the next 5 years, yet Bush is gearing up for one within the next 5 months.

Screw the candidates. It's time we stop running from OUR responsibility and stop the Bush war profiteering scheme before another half million people are sacrificed on his bloody pole.

I couldn't get my head around the idea that Bush would lie that blatantly (0.00 / 0)
So yeah, consider me among those fooled at the time.

By February of 2003, it was clear that Bush had lied, and we were going to war regardless of what Saddam did.  Like another President, Rufus T. Firefly of Freedonia, once said, "It's too late - I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield." 

But it wasn't nearly so clear at the beginning of October 2002.

I was fooled, too. (0.00 / 0)
Not only about WMD--which I was sure Iraq had--but about this vote. I actually -didn't- think it was a vote for war; I thought it was a vote for increased pressure.

Pathetically naive, in retrospect, but it's just not true that we -all- knew what, perhaps, we should've known.

[ Parent ]
Right on, Chris... (0.00 / 0)
Those who voted for the AUMF did so out of either political calculating or foolishness.

There are no other choices.

What's the Point?

There is a third choice (0.00 / 0)
And I think it is the most common one: they wanted to invade Iraq.
[ Parent ]
Who Are You Specifically Saying (0.00 / 0)
wanted to invade Iraq? If you are going to insinuate that some wanted to then why not name names. It might make for an interesting conversation.
[ Parent ]
Other Choices (0.00 / 0)
There are other choices, in addition to the obvious one that Chris pointed out.

Most prominently, they could have honestly misjudged.  They could have under-estimated how reckless Bush would be.  I think a lot of people did that.  But the real question is how prominently this misjudgement figured in their decisionmaking.

For most, I think that their calculation or foolishness drove their under-estimation of Bush's foolishness.  It was simply too inconvenient for them to confront it.  But for others, I think that their under-estimation of his recklessness was the driving consideration.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sort of on topic (0.00 / 0)
CSPAN's Road to the White House recently had a relatively good program on the various Democratic candidates' evolving position on the war. The host plays relevant speeches, from 2002 on, focusing on one candidate at a time. I'm sure you can find it on their website, or you can search "Road to the White House" on the iTunes store.

I'm listening to it on my iPod right now at work; Hillary comes off really badly, totally naive and defensive. Obama sounds a lot better, although there's this urge to be "responsible" through continued occupation. That's all I've heard so far.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

We all know what Lieberman-Kyl was about also. (0.00 / 0)
We all know that the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment seeks to escalate the possibility of military action against Iran.

Clinton voted for this horror.

But Obama didn't vote either way.

It's easy for him to make statements about the 2002 vote when he wasn't in the Senate. How or if he would have voted is anybody's guess.

But now is now. He couldn't bring himself to vote against the contemporary equivalent of the AUMF against Iraq in 2002.

He doesn't have much moral authority on this issue in my opinion.

His Iran Vote (0.00 / 0)
He's made it clear he would have voted no on Iran.  It's not like he abstained.  He wasn't in town and he was sick.
[ Parent ]
Re: His Iran Vote (0.00 / 0)
I don't buy it.
How sick was he? Why wasn't he "in town", Washington D.C.,?
How did he make it clear that he would have voted against Lieberman-Kyl?
All I read was something issued through a "spokesman" saying he would have voted against it if he had been "able to".
I just don't buy it.
[ Parent ]
He Walks On Water (0.00 / 0)
but sometimes he gets a code in his node.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
You don't buy it (0.00 / 0)
because you simply don't want to.  There is nothing in the consistency of his positions which would lead him to vote in any other way except against it.  He issued a major policy speech about Iran a week or so before the vote which would lead him to vote against it. 
[ Parent ]
Well, we disagree... (0.00 / 0)
You're right that I don't "want" to believe it.
Why should I "want' to believe him or anybody?

Obama's  position on Iran is not particularly consistent in my opinion.
He was talking about "surgical strikes" against Iran a few years ago.

I think he wants to be perceived as having voted against this bill without having had to vote against it.

[ Parent ]
Didn't he vote that same day on another bill? (0.00 / 0)


Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Obama Is Right: We All Knew What The Vote Was About | 26 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox