Did Clinton "Have" to Vote for the Iraq War Resolution?

One argument that women who support Hillary Clinton advance for why she voted the way she did on the Iraq War Resolution is that she "had" to vote that way in order to be a credible presidential candidate in 2008. The argument goes that since the public has questions over whether a woman can be "tough" enough to be president, she could not afford to vote against the Resolution because it would make her seem "weak." Thus, even though she might not have trusted what Bush would do with the power given to him by the Resolution, she had to vote "Yea" to maintain her political credibility.

Frankly, that argument makes Clinton look very calculating. Not only does it make her look calculating, it makes her look calculating with the lives of other people's children. What it basically says is that Clinton was willing to send other people's children off to die or be wounded so that she could be a valid presidential candidate in 2008.

There is only one reason to vote to send American troops into combat and that is because you believe that such action is absolutely vital to the security of the United States. You don't vote to send other people's children off to be killed because it helps improve your chances to become president.

It would be better to say that she believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that removing them was absolutely essential to the security of the United States. Of course, that argument would be undercut by Clinton's own speech on the floor of the Senate when she claimed that she was voting for the resolution in order to strengthen Bush's hand diplomatically. The problem with that rationale is that it assumes that she was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when there is absolutely no evidence he deserved it.

The Iraq Resolution & the Iraq War

This is from the section of the joint Resolution for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq that authorizes the use of military force by the President:

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.

So here are some questions we have:

1. How does the present Iraq government pose a "continuing threat" to the security of the United States;

2. What relevant United Nations Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq is being enforced by the United States military in Iraq; and

3. Why don't Democrats talk more about this resolution in their speeches and remarks against the war in Iraq?

The resolution doesn't call for continuing war in Iraq, rather it calls for the accomplishments of certain goals. If those goals have been met, then under what authorization is the President keeping the military in Iraq?

Official in Washington Post Story Says U.S. Could be in Iraq 5-10 Years

The Washington Post ran a story today, 4.8.2007, in which an official was quoted as saying that the effort to stabilize Iraq will take 5-10 years, minimum. The theme of the article was that the political timetable in Washington is different from the timetable that the military is operating under in Iraq. The military officers serving in Iraq see American forces being in Iraq for years while the politicians funding the war in Washington see us being in Iraq in terms of months.

One of things that Bush has managed to do is resist setting any meaningful standards by which the American people can measure the progress of the Iraq War. Saying things like "We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up" doesn't really say anything. How are we to measure whether Iraqis have stood up? By the number of civilian deaths in Iraq? By the number of instances of sectarian violence in Iraq? How is progress in Iraq to be determined?

Bush can't answer that question because he doesn't know. He keeps insisting on discussing Iraq as if there was an enemy in Iraq that is foreign to Iraqis, as if all we have to do is defeat that enemy and we will have "won" Iraq. The problem is that most of the killing is being done by Iraqis against other Iraqis. Unless Iraqis become convinced that killing each other is not in their best interests the killing won't stop. Apparently if the killing doesn't stop then Bush and his supporters see American troops staying in Iraq indefinitely.

If, in 2002, when he sought the resolution to go to war with Iraq, he had told the American people that this war would mean American troops in Iraq until 2008 or beyond, they would never have supported it. The American people weren't told that, instead they were fed a fantasy about how our troops would be greeted as "liberators" and that the Iraqi people would be eternally grateful for our efforts.

Now, of course, over 3,000 American deaths later, we are supposed to stay in Iraq because of all the bad things that will happen if we leave. Here's a question: if the Bush Administration was so wrong about what would happen when we went into Iraq, why should we believe them about what will happen if we leave?

Anti-Escalation Resolution Passes U.S. House, Ohio Republicans Support Bush

Seventeen Republicans voted against the Bush administration's escalation of troops in Iraq on Roll Call 99. You can view the results by clicking on the link in this entry's title. A quick review shows no Ohio Republican voting for the Resolution, which means that they all decided to stick with Bush, including Republicans who had tight races like Pryce and Schmidt. Congressman Regula, OH-16, voted against the Resolution.

Although earlier this week, commentators were saying that as few as 12 or as many as 60 Republicans might bolt and support the anti-escalation Resolution, in the final analysis party loyalty apparently won out. Of course, if this plan doesn't work, then it will be very hard for Republicans to escape responibility for the mess that is Iraq in 2008.

UPDATE: Our apologies to Steve LaTourette, who was one of the 17 Republicans to vote with the Democrats on this issue. What's interesting is that he didn't have near the close race that Pyrce had, yet he managed to support the anti-escalation resolution.

Will Voinovich Vote to Stop Warner Resolution From Going to the Floor?

Supposedly George Voinovich is against Bush's escalation on the war in Iraq, but the question becomes is he willing to allow a vote on the John Warner Resolution opposing escalation? Today, February 5, 2007, the Senate is scheduled to take a vote on whether the Warner Resolution will be allowed to come to the floor of the Senate. This vote has to obtain 60 votes. If it doesn't, it apparently won't be allowed to get to the floor. (An explanation of why this is so is found by clicking on the link in this entry's title.) Sen. McConnell, (R-KY), the Minority Leader of the Senate is claiming that all Republican Senators, apparently including Warner himself, will vote against allowing the Warner Resolution to come to the floor for debate.

All Republican Senators would include Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, Warner, and Hagel, all Republicans who have claimed to be against Bush's escalation. What they are trying to do is have it both ways, that is, they are trying to get public credit for opposing the escalation, but then cozy up to the White House in voting to block the bill from getting to the floor. Quite frankly they count on the public not being aware of what is going on and they count on the news media not telling the public what is going on.

Former Rep. Majority Leader Regrets Iraq War Vote

Dick Armey, Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002, regrets voting for the Iraq War Resolution. He also thinks that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. It is a fascinating article and you can read it by clicking on the link in this entry's title.