[Vision2020] Fw: 2 wars, 2 votes in Congress, only 10 who got both right

Mon Oct 30 19:57:54 PST 2006

Not being a reader of USA Today, I missed this interesting article...  Of course, despite the interesting angle, it highlights the superficiality of USA Today, in a way.  How could they only list two of the ten people in Congress who, according to the paper, "voted right" both times?

BDL

To: Bruce&Jean Livingston (E-mail) 
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: 2 wars, 2 votes in Congress, only 10 who got both right

2 wars, 2 votes in Congress, only 10 who got both right 
Mon Oct 30, 7:04 AM ET 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/2wars2votesincongressonly10whogotbothright

Voting to send the nation to war is one of the rarest and most important decisions a member of Congress can make. It's not just a matter of gambling with lives; it risks the nation's standing in the world and the fabric of U.S. society, which a lengthy conflict can rip apart.

Twice in the past 15 years lawmakers had to make this constitutionally required choice about Iraq, first in 1991 to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait and again in 2002 to authorize a pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear the vote to go to war in 1991 was the correct one. 

The first President Bush assembled a broad international coalition and used overwhelming force to fight a quick war that reversed Saddam's aggression in Kuwait but avoided the problems of occupying Iraq. No other option seemed likely to push Iraq back. 

Although the case for war was strong, the votes were less so: 250-183 in the House and just 52-47 in the Senate.

Just as certainly, the wiser vote in 2002 was to deny the second President Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Despite failing to rally most U.S. allies, Bush was preparing to launch a far more ambitious and risky war. 

But Congress, perhaps emboldened by the successful post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan a year earlier, too easily accepted the widespread (but mistaken) belief that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. 

Some members who had voted "no" in 1991 wanted to exorcise that vote. Public opinion, including opinions voiced by this page, favored passing the resolution, at least to give Bush the leverage he sought to force Saddam to give in peacefully. 

The votes were overwhelming: 296-133 in the House, and 77-23 in the Senate. But the war that followed five months later turned out to be tragically ill-conceived, poorly planned and based on a faulty premise.

Haunted by Vietnam 

So how many of the hundreds of members of Congress eligible to vote both times were on the right side of history by supporting the first Iraq war and opposing the second? Just 10.

Two senators and eight House members voted both "yes" in 1991 and "no" in 2002. The small group includes six Democrats, three Republicans and one Republican-turned-Independent. Seven are still in office.

The list reveals a group of independent thinkers neither reflexively hawkish nor dovish. Their experiences offer cautionary lessons as the nation struggles to extract itself from Iraq and faces new threats of war.

One of the 10 is Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), a prickly and powerful Democrat from Michigan who has served in Congress since 1955. His story is revealing.

In 1991, he supported the Gulf War to curb Saddam's dangerous expansionism. Shortly before the 2002 vote, as Dingell tells it, Vice President Cheney and CIA Director George Tenet brought him and three other House members to a claustrophobic room high in the Capitol to lobby them to vote "yes."

Dingell, now 80, was haunted by an earlier experience. He'd been a member of Congress in 1964, when it hurriedly approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that authorized the use of force in Vietnam. 

It, too, was based on shoddy evidence. "Of the bad votes I've made, and I've made more than a few, that was probably the worst," Dingell says now. 

The misbegotten war that had flowed from the vote 38 years earlier made Dingell wary. The congressman asked to see the evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda. 

Cheney and Tenet told him it was classified. Dingell countered that he had as good a security clearance as anyone in the room. Again, he was rebuffed. After four such exchanges, Dingell says, he concluded there was no such evidence. He voted against the war resolution.

Struggling for answers 

On the Republican side, Rep. Jim Leach (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa, who supported the first Gulf War, voted "no" in 2002 for reasons both prophetic (the wrong kind of war could weaken the fight against terrorism "and undercut core American values and leadership around the world") and mistaken (a U.S. invasion would provoke Saddam to attack Israel with biological weapons).

Refusing to use force when it's necessary can be as destructive as racing to a war that should be avoided. The trick is knowing the difference. 

"Anyone who is not conflicted in their judgment is not thinking seriously," Leach said shortly before his 2002 vote. That's the only appropriate way to approach such a fateful decision. 

Like everyone else, those who made the right decision twice are struggling for answers about what to do next in Iraq. Leach argues for a phased withdrawal, starting now. 

Dingell demands that the president either withdraw or provide enough additional troops, money and combat supplies to win. 

Amid all the uncertainty about the future, it's increasingly clear that the nation would have been better served had more members of Congress asked the question Dingell did in 2002: Where's the proof? 

It's a question members of the next Congress might have to ask again, about Iran or North Korea or somewhere else. 

As Americans go to the polls Nov. 7, they should look for candidates able to see beyond the passions of the moment, and buck the party line if necessary, when making the most profound choice facing our elected representatives.

      Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
      Questions or Comments
      Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061030/a65ab84e/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/bmp
Size: 8214 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061030/a65ab84e/attachment-0001.bin 