by Heineken » Sat 17 Dec 2011, 20:29:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', ' ')I also have always been a bit disturbed that the whole congressional declaration of war process was punted...
Put your mind at ease. The process wasn't punted. The Congress was just as stupid about the war as the Bush administration was.
The war was extensively debated in Congress and then voted on and authorized by the Congress. Many prominent democrats voted in favor of going to war in Iraq, including John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The Senate resolution authorizing the war was co-sponsored by Tom Daschle, the democratic leader in the Senate and in the House it was co-sponsored by democrat Rep. Dick Gephardt. In the House it was passed through by a large majority of Republicans, and in the Senate it was passed through by a large majority of Senate Dems (58% of Senate Dems voted for the war in Iraq).
The Iraq War Resolution authorizing war in Iraq was passed by both houses of Congress in 2002The simple-minded view is that the unnecessary war in Iraq is completely the responsibility of the Bush administration. However, in reality the war was voted through and authorized and then funded by vote after vote by Congress, so that some share of blame for the war should also be laid at the feet of both the democrats and republicans in the US Congress who supported and voted for the war.
Well, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Democrats and Republicans are all that different. Both parties are disasters.
That said, it should be noted that a jingoistic political climate was carefully engineered by Bush's people prior to the vote to which you refer. By the time the vote was held, there was enormous pressure on all parties to vote "for." A vote against was painted in the light of virtual treason. This was the Bush people's war, lock, stock and barrel. They had in fully in mind at the time of Bush's election.
And once the war began, it was all about "supporting the troops." Remember that? If you didn't vote for the funding, you weren't supporting the troops. You would starve them and leave them without boots. Never mind that leaving them there meant risking their balls getting blown off for no real purpose. The best way to "support the troops" would have been to return them home years ago (or never to have sent them in the first place).
There are many good causes for the use of our troops, but this entanglement was just as wrong-headed and stupid and wasteful as Vietnam.