General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)The reason we're still fighting a pitched battle over the IWR: Revisionist History [View all]
Because for all the assertions that those who voted for it weren't really voting for war; weren't really giving W a blank check, but were actually voting for diplomacy, the bottom line is that it was was what it was- a vote that gave w a blank check. There were those democrats who voted for it and those who voted against it. Bright line clear.
There were those that stated the obvious eloquently- that it was a blank check, Tonkin Gulf Resolution redux- and those that stated the obscure muddily- that they were voting for it for diplomacy, to give bush a stronger hand.
I believe that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards voted for it because all three had presidential ambitions and in their calculations a vote against the IWR was too big a political liability.
The pretense and revisionist theories that come from those who want to make this into something that had all these shades of gray is always going to crash into the reality of the fact that they voted to give bush a blank check- and boy did he put a lot of zeros written in a lot of blood on that check.
Voting yes was shameful and in my book, it was inexcusable. Every Congress person who voted for the IWR is complicit with a horrendous and pointless war.
"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." 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. "
-Patrick Leahy