Having staffed two of the Dems who voted for Iraq AUMF (Biden & Kerry; I advised Biden against it at the time, worked for Kerry years later):
♦️Both of them felt, and have said publicly, that they wanted to empower the President in his coercive diplomacy. Many Dems honestly felt this way.
♦️Both of them felt, and have said publicly, that they wanted to empower the President in his coercive diplomacy. Many Dems honestly felt this way.
Reposted from
James Fallows
2/2
* Congressional GOP not yet ENTIRELY zombie robots. Bush "led" party but not like today's cult.
* Big diff: "Liberal hawks," who made the "moral" and "history's duty" case for war. They were wrong, but they were numerous, and had huge platforms.
Not so many in that camp now.
DON'T DO IT.
* Congressional GOP not yet ENTIRELY zombie robots. Bush "led" party but not like today's cult.
* Big diff: "Liberal hawks," who made the "moral" and "history's duty" case for war. They were wrong, but they were numerous, and had huge platforms.
Not so many in that camp now.
DON'T DO IT.
Comments
In 2003 (like every year) MANY Senators/Members saw themselves as future Presidents, and felt a vote against war would be a political deathblow.
Biden, Kerry, and GOP Sens Lugar and Hagel were working hard to slow the push towards war.
Gephardt blindsided his colleagues by rushing to endorse invasion.
♦️In 2002/2003, many in Congress (both Dem & GOP, albeit too few) took their jobs seriously.
♦️Bush Admin officials were cynical and untruthful, but weren't clowns.
♦️They had a plan-- regime change & nation-building. It was a bad plan, but wasn't just "drop a GBU-57 and see what happens."
Cleland, Carnahan found out that “no room between me and the President,” was a losing strategy.
They were outmatched. Kinda like now.