What matters is that they voted in favor of letting the President take the country to war. They should be held accountable for that, not for some nebulous claim for what they hoped the resolution might accomplish.

You know, I'm almost with you here. But you're not really being fair. The AUMF did set conditions on whether the President should go to war:

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

What Clinton and Hagel did was vote to go to war under a reasonable set of conditions, as determined by the President. The conditions are actually pretty reasonable ones (I'd have made the UN Resolution language much much narrower for anything I'd vote for, but the conditions aren't nuts). They didn't vote for a bill declaring war as of the passage of the bill, they voted for a war when reasonable conditions were met.

Where they screwed up was in giving the President the authority to determine if those conditions were met. And that was a serious and culpable error, because he wasn't trustworthy -- a sensible person in Clinton or Hagel's position would have known that he was determined to go to war regardless, and I believe they both did know that.

But they were in a position where the rationale for a "No" vote, given their substantive positions, would have to have been: "While I think the conditions set forth for going to war in the AUMF are good ones, I do not trust the President to make the determination as to whether those conditions have been met: I doubt his competence and his good faith." That would have been the gutsy thing to do, and we'd be better off if Clinton and Hagel had said something along those lines. But it's an awfully difficult thing to have expected a politician to have said.

Clinton and Hagel are both correct in their characterization of the AUMF -- it did approve war only as a last resort and on reasonable conditions. Their votes wouldn't have been a problem in a world where the Administration was operating in good faith and competently. The error they made -- and it was a culpable error which should be held against them -- was pretending, against their better knowledge, that we lived in that world.

Liz,

The bottom line for me is what you summed up in your last sentence, and I'm particularly displeased with Hagel because he admits he knew that the Bush administration planned to go to war in Iraq regardless. Again, I don't object to their having made a mistake; given my own record, I'm in no position to point fingers. But when they want us to believe they'll do better, they ought to start by telling us that they recognize when they made mistakes.

"...while Senator Clinton claims that her vote for the AUMF was strictly intended to provide the President with diplomatic leverage."

And she's so fiendishly clever, and insidious, that she travelled back in time to make the same "claim" back in 2002 in her Senate speech, the entire point of which was that she wasn't yet voting for war; most crucial bit:

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Now, say whatever you like about this, she's not currently "claiming" something she didn't say at the time.

"But they were in a position where the rationale for a 'No' vote, given their substantive positions, would have to have been: 'While I think the conditions set forth for going to war in the AUMF are good ones, I do not trust the President to make the determination as to whether those conditions have been met: I doubt his competence and his good faith.' That would have been the gutsy thing to do, and we'd be better off if Clinton and Hagel had said something along those lines. But it's an awfully difficult thing to have expected a politician to have said.

Clinton and Hagel are both correct in their characterization of the AUMF -- it did approve war only as a last resort and on reasonable conditions. Their votes wouldn't have been a problem in a world where the Administration was operating in good faith and competently. The error they made -- and it was a culpable error which should be held against them -- was pretending, against their better knowledge, that we lived in that world."

I have to wonder, so I'll ask directly: if, in fact, Andrew, these two Senators had said and done what LizardBreath describes, would, at the time, you have praised their courage and clear-thinking analysis?

"But when they want us to believe they'll do better, they ought to start by telling us that they recognize when they made mistakes."

She's said:

[...]that finally led her a month ago to say that, knowing what she knows now, she would not have voted for the resolution.

Is there some more preferable form, or additional words, that you're looking for?

And just how unclear is Chuck Hagel, as well, actually?

Gary and Liz have already made the key points -- the AUMF was explicitly sold as not likely to lead to war, and in 2002 Bush criticized people who made the argument that it was a vote for war.

In his signing statement, Bush said that it made war less likely.

It was a war vote only if you accept that Bush was a liar in 2002 when he explained his purposes and motives for seeking the AUMF. Basically, Bush procurred the AUMF by fraudulently misrepresenting his motives.

Plus put the vote in context -- deliberately scheduled for October, 2002 with Republicans running on the theme that Democrats who voted against it were terrorist lovers.

Normally, when people such as Clinton and Hagel are deceived by a con artist into doing something, we do not blame the victims for having been conned. Their responsibility is to acknowledge tht they made a mistake to trust Bush and take him at his word. No amount of further qualifying language in the AUMF would have a made a difference with such a person, except for an explicit requirement for a second vote to allow war, which Bush fought tooth and nail against.

It is not an evasion of responsibility for these people to explain that they voted for the AUMF based on Bush's own word and arguments, which turned out to be deliberately false.

You are basically saying that they were knuckleheads to have trusted Bush and to have taken his words and the words of the AUMF at face value. That is a fair judgment only if you also argue that correct thinking peole such as yourself should have concluded in 2002 that Bush was a liar and could not be trusted with such authority.

I would like to see you make that argument.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: