The Republicans strategically placed the Iraq Resolution before the midterms. With Bush's popularity and the evidence given to the American people at the time, few Democrats had no choice but to support it.
She was a senator of New York. How exactly was she going to lose that election?
Exactly. She was a senator from the state where 2,500 of her constituents died in a terrorist attack a year before the vote. The president of the United States, who had the time did not have the terrible reputation he does today, was saying that this country had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to the Eastern seaboard. Suppose she had voted against authorization, no action had been taken, and New York was attacked again? She would have caused the deaths of her constituents by dereliction of duty.
Of course, her vote was never decisive, and I would argue that she was credible when she said at the time that it was not a vote for war. Iraq was still accepting new inspections after the vote, the international community continued to debate, and protests against the war continued well into February. At the time the position of many Democrats was that the U.S. should not go to war without backing from the international community. The failure of the so-called 18th resolution in early 2003 meant that a war should never have been launched. As late as March 2003, Hans Blix was talking about continued sanctions. In any case, by no means was war considered to be a
fait accompli before January 2003.
George W. Bush and his administration must bear responsibility for the war. He lied to Congress about the vital matter of the safety of the American people, for which Congress gave him an
authorization, but not an order, to use force. He then abused that authorization and used force even though many of us who thought a U.S. president should have had the
option ought never to have used it without (a) clear evidence of an imminent threat, and (b) support from the international community.
For those of you saying "but Bush was so evil, they should have known", I would argue no, the worst things the Bush administration eventually did were by no means known or should have been expected in October 2002. As the president of the U.S., of either party, he was in a way above politics, as he should have been. Just as Democrats would want Republicans to support Obama on matters of vital national security, and give him the benefit of the doubt, so Democrats should to Republicans. If Chris Christie is elected, I'm not going to automatically assume he's evil unless the evidence presents itself.
