Frank Rich has an excellent piece in today’s NYT, which is worth reading: “Lying Like It’s 2003.” He calls the Bush administration out on the outrageous fabrications they have offered in recent weeks: the recent troop expansion did not overrule field commanders; we’ve made “enormous progress” in Iraq; signs of the Iraqi civil war did not emerge until last summer; Nuri al-Maliki is a competent partner; everyone thought Saddam had WMD; the administration promptly admitted its mistake on this score after the invasion; and, worst of all, there is no other credible plan for Iraq.
What Rich does not mention explicitly, but should, is that the Democrats helped enormously to perpetuate these lies in 2003. The Party’s leaders and the vast majority of its rank and file in Congress, including a substantial majority of Democratic Senators, voted for the war. The Party should set a new course in 2007. The more firmly it positions itself against the Bush administration on Iraq, the greater the political benefits in the future. This tragic mistake will collapse of its own contradictions. It is happening before our eyes. In the meantime, our soldiers are dying and our money is being wasted on a project that is weakening us. No symbolic votes: real votes.
One correction though: the “vast majority” of Democrats did not vote for the war. In the House of Representatives, a majority of Democrats (about 60%, if I recall) voted against the Iraq War Resolution. As did 20 Democratic senators.
I have updated the piece and also written another one that explains exactly how the Democrats voted in 2002.
As you’ve corrected, most Congressional Democrats opposed the war. It was the party’s leadership that supported the war, and it was the leadership that Democrats were angry at.
<
p>
Senate Majority Leader Daschle was a sponsor of the Iraq war resolution, and in the house, Minority Leader Gephardt not only sponsored the war resolution but actively undermined attempts by Democrats to introduce amendments that would’ve weakened it, including one that had enough Republican support to pass, and that would’ve required Bush to come back to Congress for new authorization if he failed to get UN security council authorization – that amendment was our best hope for stopping the war and had a credible chance of passing if it weren’t for the Democratic leaders in the House. Gephardt actively championed the war resolution and joined Bush at the podium for the signing ceremony.
<
p>
That’s partly how Howard Dean’s campaign took off: rather than direct his criticism primarily at Bush or Bush’s policies, he directed it at the Democratic party’s leadership for not opposing Bush’s policies – especially the war. Rank & file rebellion is also what led to Gephardt being replaced by Nancy Pelosi, who was one of the Representatives who organized the very successful move to buck the leadership in the House and vote against the war. Daschle lost his re-election bid.
Thanks for the excellent comment.