J.  Congress, Candidates, and The President

Return to FAQs
Last updated 12/14/2005

Congress votes to give the President power to begin the war...

1.  What was Congress' role in September/October 2002? (For Congress after the war begins, see "P.S." FAQ section)

The House and Senate votes of October 10-11 allow the President to begin a war without returning to Congress and without further UN approval.  The resolution called for the President to Use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines necessary and proper in order to: 1.)  defend the national security interests of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and  2.)  to enforce all relevant UNSC resolution regarding Iraq".  He also had to certify to Congress that diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will not work.  (Washington Post, 10/2/02).

The vote passed the House 296-133.  
The Yes votes were: 81 Democrats and 215 Republicans. 
The No votes were 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

In the Senate 29 off 50 Democrats voted with the President along with 48 Republicans.

Return to Top

The original text of the President's resolution was changed only somewhat. The House passed the resolution 293-133 on October 10, while the Senate followed the next morning, 77-23. (See text of resolution). A point-by-point critique of the Congressional resolution is presented by the Institute for Policy Studies.  About half of the Democrats were opposed but only 6 Republicans voted against the President's wishes.  Barbara Lee's alternative resolution against war received 72 votes in the House. Reaction to the resolution includes "Congress Abdicates."  

"Congress in running scared on Iraq, for fear of seeming unpatriotic," claims a Post editorial by David Ignatius. Four  years earlier, The Iraq Liberation Act of October, 1998 (Public Law 105-338) giving $97 million to the INC, conveyed the sense of Congress:  "It should be the policy of the U.S. to support efforts to remove the regime...from power..." 

The vote was "based on trust of George Bush and his leadership--what he most know--rather than a deep-felt conviction for most people that Saddam is a threat" (George Mason University Professor James Pfiffner in AP, 3/17/03). 

Congress will not get another vote before an invasion would begin. It seemed likely in October that the U.S. will begin the war by Valentine's Day, especially given the November 8 UN Resolution. The BBC continued to update their informative "Q & A:  Conflict with Iraq". Also see "Allies/UN" and "WMD/Weapons Inspectors" FAQ sections.

In August 2002 the Bush administration asserted that the President did not need Congressional authority to got to war. Not until September did the administration begin to discuss or consult Congress. After Bush's September 2002 speech at the UN, Congress praised but also expressed doubts. It was one week later, on September 19, that Bush sent his formal resolution to Congress, urging their support to use force against the entire region (Iran, Syria) with these words: "....It's an important signal...that this country is united in our resolve to deal with threats we face...If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authority to use force." Rumsfeld felt that delaying the vote "would send the wrong message," (Chicago Tribune, 9/19/02) that the U.S. "may be unprepared to take a stand, just as we are asking to international community to take a stand" (NYTimes/Reuters, 9/18/02). 

University of Chicago political science professor Robert Pope said, "In August [2002] Bush was down on his ranch in Texas telling people there was no decision on war and denouncing speculation about war as media frenzy...It's impossible to expect Congress to seriously oppose the administration in two or three weeks (Washington Post, 10/9/02). Further criticism of the proposed Congressional resolution came from Phyllis Bennis of The Institute for Policy Studies.

Return to Top

A New York Times editorial that week, continued the theme.  "The Bush administration has to recognize the legitimate concerns of lawmakers who do not want to give the President a blank check to wage war wherever he wants [the President's proposal, later amended]...and without any initial steps being taken to try to avoid a conflict.  Casting slurs on the patriotism of anyone who raises a question is unfair and borders on un-American" (9/26/02). 

In a mid-September response to some criticism of evidence, a typical Rumsfeld reply was, "The last thing we want is a smoking gun.  A gun smokes after it has been fired...Do you believe it is our responsibility to wait for a nuclear, chemical, and biological 9/11?  Or is it the responsibility of free people to do something now--to take steps to deal with the threat before we are attacked? (NYTimes/Reuters, 9/18/02). 

In his Rose Garden address of early October concerning the Iraq Resolution, the President urged passage with a warning:  "The issue is now before the U.S. Congress.  This debate will be closely watched by the American people.  And this debate will be remembered in history...Aided by a terrorist network, an outlaw regime can launch attacks while concealing its involvement...Saddam must disarm.  Period."

The Senate Intelligence Committee complained that only hours before their October hearing did they receive the latest National Intelligence estimate.  Sen. Graham felt that "they declassified only things that supported their position and left classified what did not support that policy" (Wash Post, 6/22/03). 

Return to Top

2 . In Congress, who were the pro-invasion voices?  

Back in June, 2002 House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) and others lent their support to the overthrow. Gephardt's support was conditioned, it seemed. 

Tom Delay (R-TX and House Majority Whip and later House Majority leader) denounces critics as "apologists for idleness" and supports action against "the most dangerous...and vile...man in the world.  Saddam must go, and the sooner, the better. The only choice is victory or defeat."  See full text of Delay's speech.

As a consistent supporter of the administration policy, Delay reacted positively to Powell's UN speech in February (NYTimes, 2/6).  "For Saddam Hussein's appeasers, no showing of diabolical crime, documented militarism, and pursuit of mass terror weapons will ever constitute sufficient, so-called 'evidence' to confront his tyrannical regime."  In late February Delay attacked democrats who oppose the war.  The Times described the "tirade" he "unleashed" toward Howard Dean and other Democrats calling them "the appeasement party of the future."  Dean had said, "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Partly leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq."  Dean felt that North Korea and alQaeda were greater dangers to the U.S.  Delay's response of this "outrageous...reckless strategy" was, "He either doesn't know what he's talking about when he says we're going to take unilateral action, or he's seriously misinformed, or he's just misleading the American people and his party" and has "disqualified himself from national leadership" (NYTimes, 2/26).

Retiring House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex) at first saw the first-strike as "an opportunity to make the world safer" though up until he voted with the President, Armey cautioned: "I need to see a plan before I cast a vote."  Excerpts of the October Senate debate include, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me." 

Senator Trent Lott (R-MS, at left) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) were also early and vocal supporter of the President's policy.  Before the President's September UN speech, Lott said, "I do think that we're going to have to get a more coherent message together and make sure the American people understand the threat" (Time, 9/16).

Said Lott before the Congressional vote, "It is up to us today to send a message to the world and to American's friends that we are committed to stand with them to eliminate the threat that this rogue regime poses to the peace of the world" (NYTimes, 10/4/02). Hastert "blistered" France with recommendations for "slapping bright orange health warning labels on some imported French wines" (Tribune, 2/27).

Senator Warner (R-VA) used history to argue that pre-emptive attacks have been common for the last 100 years, including those by the U.S. against Panama, Somalia, and Kosovo (NYTimes, 10/5/02). Warner felt the Congressional vote was "not an act of war. It is an act to deter war" (Chicago Tribune, 10/11/02). 

In January and February most Republicans were backing Bush's approach and believed the time for war was near.  Some Democrats were sharing Rumsfeld's criticism of Germany and France.  Said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), "I am particularly disgusted by the blink intransigence and utter ingratitude of France, Germany, and Britain...Had it not been for our military commitment, France, Germany and Britain today would be Soviet Socialist republics.  The failure of these states to honor their commitments [to vote to protect Turkey in case of war] is beneath contempt" (NYTimes, 2/13). 

Martin Frost, who challenged Nancy Pelosi for House minority leader, wanted unity behind the President.  In early March, Frost who urged hope that, " our leaders--both in Congress and the administration speak with one voice so that our allies and our foes around the world understand the resolve of the American people" (Wash Post, 3/7). 

Over the months approaching war, they often echoed the comments of Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld expressed in "Should We" FAQ section and other sections. For example, new Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), authored a Post op-ed in mid-March, entitled, "When War Is the Best Medicine"   http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27804-2003Mar14?language=printer

Criticizing the human rights record of Hussein in the week before the war, Frist wrote in his Post op-ed piece "When War Is the Best Medicine", "We know he has mustard gas and the VX nerve agent...Would we gamble the health of our families and our nation on the likelihood that pharmaceutical vaccines and cures will be found before Hussein decides he would like to try an attack against America and our allies?...We have the information that Hussein will use chemical and biological weapons. The question is whether he will use them against American, directly or indirectly"  Looking at lessons of history, the Senate majority leader continued, "The deterrence of Cold War disciplines evaporated with he demise of the Soviet Union".  He expressed concern for the proliferation "of non-state actors--proliferators and terrorists--eager to obtain and use [WMD], combined with a global environment devoid of real penalties, for the stockpiling of such weapons by rogue nations...  I have no doubt that Hussein would gladly provide [WMD] to nationally unaffiliated groups to use against us--if he has not already--and no doubt he would be just as glad to sit back and take no credit."  

After describing the horrific effects of VX nerve agent, the doctor and Senator concluded, "Getting red of Saddam Hussein's regime is out best inoculation.  Destroying once and for all his weapons of disease and death is a vaccination for the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27804-2003Mar14?language=printer
Two days later, Frist said, "The President has shown great patience and given diplomacy every chance to work" (Wash Post, 3/18). 

3. Who were the anti-invasion voices in Congress (who aren't Presidential candidates)? 
For Presidential candidates, see "P.S." FAQ section 

Not until September 4, a week before the President went to the UN, did Bush pledge to seek Congressional approval before taking action, saying, "For 11 long years, Saddam Hussein ahs sidestepped, crawfished, and wheedled out of any agreement he had made not to develop [WMD].  So I'm going to call upon the world to recognize that he is stiffing the world" (Washington Post, 9/4/02). At the same time, the President was reportedly considering "coercive inspections" where inspectors could shoot their way into suspected sties. (Also see "Weapons Inspections" FAQ Section). 

Senator Tom Daschle, (D-SD; ) said, "We can't find bin Laden, we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of Al Qaeda...So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?" Earlier Tom Daschle  criticized the President because "unilateral action has very very dire consequences for our country."  He was also concerned about the timing of the war, with regard to Israeli-Palestinian violence. By late September, Daschle was supporting the President and finally decided to vote for war authorization.  Like Kerry, in January he was speaking of no-pre-emptive war without UN approval (WashPost, 1/25/03).

Back in early September, as Senate Majority leader, Daschle felt the case for action had not been made because the administration needed to explain, according to the Washington Post in "Senator Worry About Action Against Iraq":

1.  What new information it has about the threat posed by Iraq,
2.  The impact on other anti-terrorist efforts
3. The impact on relations between US and allies
4.  the cost
5.  Plans for post-Hussein regime.
Daschle warned that unilateral action could have "very, very dire consequence for our county."  After the UN speech, he seemed somewhat convinced, responding, "I don't think that the case for a re-emptive attack has been made conclusively yet that doesn't mean it can't be made" (Washington Post, 9/13/02).   In February, after Powell's UN speech, Daschle, like Kerry (see below) , was less critical of the administration. 

Daschle's early March criticism revolved around "diplomatic failure", rushing to unilateral war with a small coalition, unlike the Persian Gulf War (NYTimes, 3/7). But on the eve of war, Daschle was "saddened that the President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced into war...saddened that we have to give up one life because the president wouldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country"  The reaction to Daschle from Republicans was harsh.  Speaker Hastert felt that the remarks "may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."  Spokesman Ari Fleisher added, "He's essentially blaming Bush for the fact that we may be on the verge of war".  When asked by one Republican to apologize, Daschle would not back down and said, "There is no question that I stand strongly with the troops" (WashPost, 3/18 and NYTimes, 3/19).

Other criticism arrives from in the New York Times op-ed from sometime supporter Dick Gephardt (D-Mo, House Minority Leader):  "To question people's patriotism for simply raising question about how a war is to be fought and won...is not only insulting, it's immoral...We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must."  Gephardt voted with the President.  

Strong criticism came from outspoken veteran Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV).  In the debate preceding the vote, Byrd warned, "As sure as the sun is rising in the east, we are embarking on a course of action...that in its haste is both blind and imprudent." (NYTimes, 10/4/02). Byrd further blustered that Bush's military doctrine would "give him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegation and arbitrary risk assessments" (Washington Post, 10/8/02).

Byrd's October Op-ed in the New York Times (10/10/02), "Congress Must Resist the Rush to War", included, "The President's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best...The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step." 

Byrd commented after the speech by Powell that he wants Bush to seek a formal declaration of war. House minority leader Nancy Pilosi added, "The question is whether war now is the only way to rid Iraq of these deadly weapons.  I do not believe it is" (Post, 2/6/03). 

In his February speech Byrd criticized the "recklessness" of the Administration policies. Earlier, he passionately argued, "38 years ago, I...voted on the Tonkin Gulf resolution.  For all those spouting jingoes about the need to go to war with Iraq now, go down on the capital mall and look at the Vietnam memorial." He also cautioned that "to engage in war is always to pick a wild card...I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is 'in the highest moral tradition of our country."  

His "We stand passively mute" a critical op-ed http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4608023-103677,00.html
included:  "To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experience.  As this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American must be contemplating the horrors of war...This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in US foreign policy...The doctrine of pre-emption--the idea that the U.S. or any other nation can attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be in the future--is a radical new twist on the traditional ideas of self-defense.  It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN charter...Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from US leaders is fracturing the once-solid alliance against global terrorism which exited after September 11."  After commenting on budget priorities and bin Laden, Byrd continued, "This administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict.  Is our attention span that short?"  Questioning the little information on the aftermath, "Will we seize Iraq's oil fields? To whom do we hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?  Will our war result in attacks on Israel?...This chamber is silent.  On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the Senate.  We are truly 'sleepwalking through history.'"

Byrd's harsh criticism continuing through the winter and into the spring, even after the war began.
On the eve of war, he delivered these words on the arrogance of power on the Senate floor:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-04.htm
"But, today, I weep for my country.  I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart.  No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper.  the image of America has changed.  Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our work is disputed, our intentions are questioned...Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves.  We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many...As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place...After was has ended, the U.S. will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq.  We will have to rebuild America' image around the globe."

On the case for war, the Senator continues, "The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence.  We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason.  This is a war of choice."

Examining Hussein, Byrd adds, "And villain he is.  But, he is the wrong villain.  And this is the wrong war.  If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power.  But the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight...A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber.  We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty it Iraq."

He concludes the speech thusly:  "Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidation, but in its ability to inspire...I along with millions of American will pray for the safely of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland."

See also lengthy Senate excerpts of the debate. 

On Jan. 27, Feingold  said, "The President has offered little concrete, real evidence" of nuclear building or alQaeda links.  "The argument just doesn't add up." In the fall Feingold had spoken of "shifting justifications" for war. 

Vocal and much early opposition came from Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) who was a  rare voice of early opposition in the Senate:  "I am...very skeptical about the need to attack Iraq unilaterally and without the support of our allies and particular Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East.  I also believe that continuing to punish the Iraqi people through sanctions only harms U.S. efforts to work with Islamic countries on difficult issues" (June, 2002).  

In late September Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) in a Post op-ed, felt rushed into a pre-emptive war.  It felt like, "Vote quick, pass the buck, head for home [Congressional recess for elections] and wish 'em luck" (9/28/02). Concurred a Democratic campaign leader, "The administration has timed the Iraq PR campaign to influence the mid-term elections...and to distract the voting public from a failing economy" (Washington Post, 9/16/02). Another wondered, if Bush is such "a patient man", what is the hurry to vote in October?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and others who earlier saw no evidence of an imminent threat, ended up voting for war authorization.  She was hesitant to do so: "I continue to have concerns that there are those in the administration who would seek to use this...for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq." Fellow California Senator Boxer (D) was getting 1000 calls or emails every two days.  "They're saying they feel the President is itching to go to war" (9/26/02).

A few months later, Senator Feinstein called military action "disturbing" (LATimes, 1/22/03) without proof of WMD.  She saw troop buildups as indicating that "regardless of the finding of the UN inspectors, the president may well intend to use military force to bring about regime change in Iraq...Iraq is contained...It is not an imminent threat." 

Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky said, "If Saddam is such a grave threat, why has the administration waited until this moment to try to make its case?  And why, as recently as 1998, was Halliburton the company headed by V.P. Cheney, doing business with Iraq..." (Chicago Tribune, 11/20/02).  The Tribune explained that Halliburton had earned "about $24 million in 1998 repairing Iraqi oil pipelines damaged in the '91 Gulf War, when Cheney was defense secretary."

Congressman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va) flew to Baghdad,  met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Sabri and describes his journey.

In late September Joseph Bonier went to Iraq with Washington Representative Jim McDermott (at left) in what proved to be a controversial trip.  McDermott received much criticism for saying, "It would not surprise me if they [U.S. administration] came up with some information that is not provable...I think the president would mislead the American people...[as President Johnson did with Vietnam]. What is really troubling me is...how much [Americans] are being led into believing there's this imminent threat...The threat keeps shifting [from AlQaeda to WMD back to AlQaeda].

Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)  replied that Bonier and McDermott "Both sound like spokespersons for the Iraqi government" (NYTimes, 9/30/02). Calling McDermott "Hussein's American collaborator", and  "useful idiot", George Will writes in "Innocents Abroad", "Not since Jane Fonda posed for photographers at a Hanoi [North Vietnam] antiaircraft gun has there been anything like...McDermott speaking to ABC's "This Week" from Baghdad saying the Americans should take Saddam Hussein at his word but should not take President Bush at his...McDermott said Iraqi officials promised him...that we4apons inspectors would be 'allowed to look anywhere.'"  Will also referred to Kofi Annan's "fathomless gullibility" (10/1/02). 

Vietnam Vet and U.S. Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) went along quietly on the trip.  His Post op-ed "I Went To See" (10/4/02) , included, "Providing any president with a blank check for a unilateral attack without exhausting all diplomatic efforts and gaining allied support would be a great disservice to our 200 years of constitutional democracy." 

Senators who lead the Foreign Relations Committee include Joseph Biden (D-Del., at left) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb., at right) wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post ("Iraq:  The Decade After" on December 20 expressing some reservation of war now. Earlier, in the brief July 31-August 1 Congressional hearings, the Senate asked for Congressional approval prior to an attack.

Biden was rumored to be a late entry into the Presidential race. Though he voted in October to support an attack, he worried that American forces might have to remain in Iraq for years: "Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction.  Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared."   

Biden and Lugar's July 31 New York Times op-ed realized that "the time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq...If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late...Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very things we are trying to prevent; his use of WMD...When Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibility...we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos."  The bi-partisan piece concludes, "Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction.  Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared." 

A failed Biden-Lugar amendment to the Congressional resolution suggested in October, would focus on WMD threats rather than violations of other UN resolution issues. In their op-ed contribution, "President Bush must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment (75,000 troops and up to $20 billion a year)...We need our allies to help rebuild Iraq...Going it alone...would turn us from liberators into occupiers, fueling resentment throughout the Arab world." 

However, Biden felt that Powell's UN speech of Feb. 5 "changed the terms of the debate in Congress and in the country" (2/9 Post). Yet 10 days later Biden warned about the aftermath:  "The American people have no notion what we are about to undertake" (Wash Post, 2/18).  Under Secretary Feith would not make a guess at cost or time.  Biden's March 10 Post op-ed "Why We Need a Second UN Resolution" spoke of goals and goalposts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2862-2003Mar9?language=printer
"For some in the administration, not going to war has never been an option, no matter what Iraq does...But regime change is not what the Security Council endorsed in Resolution 1441.  Moving the goalposts this late in the game is a bad way to win friends and influence allies...For the U.S., a second resolution is not a legal requirement, but it is a strategic one".  There will be a "massive burden of putting Iraq back together...something President Bush does not like to talk about" (3/10).  Biden wanted a special new resolution with goals and deadlines for the end of March. 

 Sen. Chuck Hagel, of the Foreign Relations Committee, was also very hesitant about an invasion, saying in the fall of 2002 that the CIA has "absolutely no evidence" Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons. In late September speaking further of evidence, he responded to Rumsfeld's "bullet-proof" evidence of AlQaeda links: "To say, "Yes, I know there is evidence there, but I don't want to tell you any more about it', that does not encourage any of us.  Nor does it give the American public a heck of a lot of faith that, in fact, what anyone is saying is true" (NYTimes, 9/28/02). 

Hagel also feels that an invasion would go against two centuries of U.S. foreign policy practice.  "We need to think about the consequences."  Though he voted yes in October, in late January he cautioned, "America needs more humility than hubris in the application of American military power and the recognition that our interests are best served through alliances and consensus" (WashPost, 1/25/03). 

Added Hagel in February of 2003, "If you propel the word into war on somewhat of a unilateral basis with some allies that we have essentially bludgeoned and coerced into it, then what do you have when it is over?" (Tribune, 2/14/03). 

Dick Durbin (D-IL) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in August that during the summer recess Illinoisans wanted to talk about Iraq. "People are very skeptical.  The message coming out of the white House is very unclear."  Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) concurred that the message was muddled.  By September Durbin  was frustrated with the Democratic leadership embracing Bush, hoping to require a UN approval before war.

On the eve of the President's UN speech, Durbin said, "If we are about to make a decision that could risk American lives, we need full and accurate information on which to base that decision.  Durbin wrote to CIA director Tenet asking for "the report outlines the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies" about Iraq's WMD (NYTimes/AP, 9/10/02 and Washington Post, 9/10/02, 9/11/02). 

After meeting with Tenet, Durbin said of the vote timing, "It would be a severe mistake...to vote...with as little information as we have" (Washington Post, 9/11/02). Republicans wanted to push the vote to before the election because, according to one,  "People want to know...where their representative stands." Concerned with feeling rushed to vote before the November mid-term elections, Durbin commented, "It has less to do with the imminent threat of Iraq and more to do with the imminent arrival of the election" (Chicago Tribune, 10/3/02). Added Durbin after the 9/11 intelligence failure, we are "now being asked to consider going to war and vote on it within days, and we learn our intelligence community has not coordinated their efforts to put together this critical document..." On September 30, The Tribune reported Durbin's official opposition to Bush's war resolution. 

On the eve of the Congressional vote, Durbin said, "If we are going to argue that we have the right...to attack any nation that we suspect may be a threat to us, how then can the U.S. play a role in the world supporting diplomacy and peace?" (Chicago Tribune, 10/11/020.  (For more on Durbin, see "P.S." FAQ section)

Durbin seemed to agree with Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, who said "I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq"  and Congress can wait to vote until January.  Pelosi was then the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and said, "If the administration has [imminent threat] information, they have not shared it with the Congress" (WashPost, 10/3/02).

In March as House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, still felt that a convincing case for was "has not been made to the American people" or the world community.  Senator Jim Johnson (D-SD) whose son is in the military and stationed in Kuwait, felt there was "some frustration that there is not much more Congress can do except to attend briefings." 

Other criticism from the House came from Charles Rangel, (D-NY), whose December 31 Times op-ed dropped a bombshell by making the suggestion to "Bring Back the Draft" and National Service.  He was concerned with long term sacrifices and the disproportionate number of minorities and poor in the military.  Most of Congress and Rumsfeld were skeptical of Rangel's proposal but Michigan Representative John Conyers thought war would be less likely if administration and lawmakers "own family members and neighbors faced the prospect of serving in the military on the front line" (WashPost, 1/7/03).  For more on the draft after the war began, see "P.S." FAQ section.

The last draft ended in 1973 as U.S. troops were leaving Vietnam.  Draft registration began again in 1980.  The Washington Post explained that under current law, if the draft were resumed, 20 year olds would be called up first, followed by 21-25, 19, 18.  

Others at times hesitant about an invasion were Sen.  Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), Sen. John Warner, of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), recently-deceased Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Sen. Mark Dayton (MN) who urges "Go Slow on Iraq," and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).  

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) sought a possible second Congressional resolution later if UN doesn't approve of war, and commented, "Whether we commit our forces to attack Iraq as part of a UN-authorized coalition or whether we go it alone could have immense consequences for our security and for future peace and stability in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and beyond." Levin intelligence criticism continued throughout the winter and spring of 2003. (For more Levin details, see "WMD/Inspectors" FAQ section).

Sens. Kerry, Edwards, Hagel, Biden, Daschle, and others ended up voting for the President's war resolution.  David Broder criticizes Democrats in  "Politics Over Principle."  

Months later, the pre-war questioning or opposition came from  HR 2, attempting to repeal the 2002 war authorization.  Danny Davis (IL) and Dennis Kucinich (OH; see below) and Barbara Lee (CA) are the three co-sponsors.  Others are circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter, signed by some in the House who supported the war vote. Others were concerned that the U.S. could pick and choose which UN resolutions to enforce.  

On the eve of war the Times labeled Democrats "divided." 

Later, in June of 2003 after the war ended and as Congress began considering hearings about the lead-up to war, Senators Levin, Biden, and others were speaking out forcefully.  

4.  What were the likely Democratic Presidential candidates arguing? 
(Also see "P.S" for Post-Saddam political issues) 

Among the nine Democrats running for President in early 2003, the most outspoken and early criticism came from Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean.  Senators Graham and Kerry later also joined in. But Dean criticized the votes of Senators Kerry and other candidates as "a blank check to go to war" (LATimes, 1/24/030. (For post-war details see "P.S" FAQ section)

After Colin Powell's February UN speech, those Democratic candidates hesitant of war mostly held back any criticism.  According to The New York Times, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt all feel that "they would support military action...even if the UN did not sanction it" (NYTimes, 2/6/03). Since then, former Illinois Senator Carol Mosley Braun has become the seventh candidate, promising to speak out against the war. Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich announced his candidacy and joined Dean's harsh criticism.  The last of the nine is Florida's Senator Bob Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Among the six announced Democratic candidates for President as of late January, none voted against the President in October.  

In early 2003 strong dissent for war has come less from Kerry and mostly from Dean and more recent entries, Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham.

Bush had support from Democratic Senators Joseph Lieberman (at right), Gephardt, and John Edwards (at left) all running for the Presidency. Gephardt decided later not to run. Edwards announced his intentions to run on January 2, 2003.

All three of these Democrats voted for the war resolution in October, though Lieberman cautioned in September:  "They rattled sabers without explaining why" (Washington Post, 9/5/02). Lieberman was mostly supportive of the President, as in January when he felt the Sate of the Union made "an effective case...that he hadn't done before." Lieberman criticized the administration for waiting too long to discuss post-war plans and he recommended an international administrator.  At an early March rally in New Hampshire, he reacted to new PEW polls:  "Let's be clear.  When more people around the world see the current American president as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein, then you know something is really wrong with his foreign policy" (Wash Post, 3/7). 

Senator Edwards, in his Washington Post Op-Ed of 9/19, emphasized national security and bipartisanship but forewarned, "We need to help provide security inside Iraq after Hussein is gone."  Edwards also complained of the President's lack of vision for "the widening problems." Of the three who voted in favor of the resolution, Kerry was most critical of the President later. 

Return to Top

Senator John Kerry (D-MA and Vietnam veteran), had criticized President Bush on Iraq and economic issues. In early September he accused the administration of being "way behind the curve in defining the nature of the problem and it has cost us in terms of our national security and our relationships needed to protect that security" (Washington Post, 9/6/02). Kerry voted yes, to "hold Saddam Hussein accountable...war must be our last option..and...we should be acting in concert with allies..." (NYTimes, 10/10/02). Sen. Kerry had opposed the war resolution leading up to the first Gulf War.

On December 1, Kerry embarked on steps toward a Presidential bid. Senator Kerry  says openly that the threat of war in Iraq was used to distract attention from the nation's economic problems. In September he felt Bush was "pushing too fast."  Kerry opposes a unilateral war and doesn't see any evidence of an  "imminent threat."

In January Kerry complained of  rush to war with "blustering, belligerent, and myopic unilateralism" that is "wrong, even dangerous for our country" (NYTimes, 1/24/03). Kerry also repeated his earlier theme, "Mr. President, do not rush to war...The U.S. should never go tot war because it wants to; the U.S. should go tot war because we have to."  

Kerry added, "The United States of America should never go to war because we want to go to war...We should go to war because we have to go to war" (Chicago Tribune, 1/20/03), while Hussein "presents a particularly grievous threat." Speaking at Georgetown University, Kerry wanted Hussein disarmed but with allies and not with "blustering unilateralism" approach of the administration (WashPost, 1/23/03 and Chicago Tribune, 1/24). "I say to the president, show respects for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger" (NYTimes, 1/24/03). But Kerry was less certain after Powell's UN speech of February 5.

Relatively quiet in February, one week before war Kerry's criticized Bush's diplomacy as "some of the weakest diplomacy that we have ever seen."  Yet, he labeled Hussein "a legitimate threat to the stability of this nation" and he did not regret his October vote.  Kerry called for American foreign policy to be "active, engaged, sensible, thoughtful, and humble" (NYTimes, 3/14). 

Among 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, only Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean offered serious and early dissent before Kucinich entered the race.

More than Kerry, Governor Dean strongly opposed the President's policies. In late-September he worried that the unilateral rush was "not good for the future of the foreign policy of this country to be the bully on the block" (Washington Post, 9/29/02). On the Congressional resolution, Dean commented that it "resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who postured for positions instead of standing on principle" (Wash Post, 2/17). 

Later Dean continued his criticism: "The President has not made the case for a clear and present danger in Iraq...We need an energy policy" (Post, 1/10/03). Dean was "proud to remain the only elected official running for president who...said the [use of force] resolution was wrong."   (WashPost, 1/23/030) Had Dean forgotten that Kucinich had put his hat in the ring?  After Powell's February UN speech, Dean's critique was, "I'm not convinced; I don't think the case has been made for unilateral action...I was impressed not by the vastness of the evidence...but rather by its sketchiness"  (NYTimes, 2/6/03 and Wash Post, 2/7). On bin Laden, "the President sounds like a war president, but I must ask whether he is focused on the right war." ("Dean speech to Critique Plans For War on Iraq")
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18611-2003Feb16?language=printer
In late February Dean took Democrats to task:  "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?" (Chicago Tribune, 2/22). Some saw Dean's campaign as similar to Eugene McCarthy's anti-Vietnam run in the 1968 Democratic primary. 

In early March Dean called the policy "ghastly" and "appalling.  They are putting us in harm's way because of their obsession with Iraq, which does not now and is not going to have nuclear weapons" (Wash Post, 3/14).  On the even of war Dean broke with most Democrats who muted their criticism. While he urged support for the troops, he also felt that "to ensure our postwar policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out" (NYTimes, 3/18).  Dean also expressed concern over the precedent of pre-emption. 

Return to Top

The head of the Progressive Caucus in Congress, oft-critical Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), often spoke out against the war and was labeled as an "anti-war candidate."  He joined Dean's criticism.  In "The Bloodstained Path" he argued that "the administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the U.S. (The Progressive, 11/02).

On Martin Luther King Day, Kucinich, the leading proponent of a cabinet level Peace Department, describes "Peace as a Civil Right":  "The question is not whether we shall go to war with the UN or without the UN.  The question is why we should go to war at all." 

In the article he writes, "Rather than Iraq being 'an imminent threat to this nation, 40 million Americans suffer from inadequate health care is an imminent threat...the ravages of unemployment is an imminent threat."  Concerned about the precedent of first strikes, Kucinich concluded, "If the U.S. proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold." 

Kucinich called the President's proposal to Congress "unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal" (NYTimes/AP, 9/19/02). He added to the Congressional record, "Is it not time to insist that our leaders suspect this incessant talk of preemptive war, of assumed right to unilateral action, and is it not time for insistence upon preventative diplomacy and our obligation to work with the world community on matters of global security.  Why is this war being presented as inevitable. The thing that gets me is we want Iraq to give up [WMD] if they have them, but why would Saddam Hussein want to cooperate with the U.S. if we have a policy of regime change which also includes a policy of wanting to assassinate him.  If you have inspectors in your country and they are measuring you for a box, you might think twice about showing them around..." 

In February Kucinich continued his attacks:  "The facts are these:  Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 or alQaeda's role in 9/11 or the anthrax attacks...Inspections should continue...this war is wrong" (Wash Post, 2/18).  On February 18 Kucinich announced his intention to run for president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22505-2003Feb17?language=printer

On the eve of war, Kucinich felt the administration polices were "putting this nation at greater risk.  this war must be challenged.  It's wrong.  It will ruin this country" (Wash Post, 3/18). 

Carol Mosely-Braun joined Kucinich as a later enty into the presidential race.  The second African-American to enter, after Rev. Al Sharpton, is a former Senator from Illinois.  A Washington Post editorial discusses the entry of Braun and Kucinich.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27742-2003Feb18?language=printer

Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), voted against the resolution in October but only announced for President in the spring.  Graham was an early skeptic seeing a lack of substantial intelligence as early as July 2002.  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence said no Middle East leaders "claimed to have conclusive knowledge of the status of Iraq's weapons program" (Wash Post, 7/31/02).

Back in the fall, after weeks of whispering, Al Gore and Tom Daschle brought the political  debate out in the open in September. (See transcript of Gore's September 23 speech.) Three months prior to his announcement that he would not be running for President, in a lengthy and detailed speech, Gore expressed his concern that "the policy we are presently following...has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century." Gore also acknowledged, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."  Gore feared that in one year we had squandered the "enormous sympathy, goodwill, and support around the world."

The New York Times comments, "Gore warned that the administration's apparent determination to launch military action...will 'severely damage' the overall war on terrorism."  Responded Post columnist Richard Cohen in "Gore on War":  "As for Democrats, many of them are so afraid of being labeled appeasers that they want to quickly give the president the war resolution he wants--so they can then turn to the weak economy as a campaign issue....To put matters in their crassest terms, they seem quite willing to sacrifice the odd 19-year-old soldier for the odd congressional seat."  Gore added, "Saddam Hussein is a bad guy who deserves to be removed from power.  But he is not the one who attacked us September 11.  He is not the one who is threatening us right now...Osama is back" (Washington Post, 11/20/02). 

The Washington Post criticized the shallow argument of Gore (and Kennedy), for critiques which lack an alternative. The Post feels they have important concerns about confusing White House arguments, lack of post-war plans, draining forces from al Qaeda.  However, Gore and Kennedy would be wise to go along with the Biden/Lugar alternative where the White House must regularly report back.  Bush should accept this alternative ("A Shallow Disagreement", 10/2/02). 

William Safire also criticized Gore, calling the speech attacking Bush's policy "the opening gun in the 2004 presidential campaign."  Gore continued his criticism on his November/December book tour with his wife Tipper:  "The top priority...should be on fighting and winning the war on terrorism...I don't think we should divert attention away from that to start a brand-new war..."  

Soon after, Gore decided not to run for President again.

"How Saddam saved the Republicans" analyzes the timing of the President's push for war and how the Democrats "caved in."  The Post's "Spinning on Iraq" adds:  "The question of whether the U.S. should go to war with Iraq ought to be the subject of a full, careful, and sober debate in Congress.  Instead, it is being treated as a purely political issue, to be manipulated for maximum advantage in the midterm elections...The Democrats can't have it both ways." 

How Democrats such as Kerry and Dean were struggling with the war issue is analyzed by the Washington Post in late January. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3707-2003Jan30?language=printer

5.  Does Congress have a role to play in 2003?
Members of Congress should question Rumsfeld, editorializes the Madison Capital Times (1/3/03).  The Washington Post's Mary McGrory (1/12/03) feels that unlike the UK, there is no debate in the US.  "A majority of the so-called opposition party, the Democrats, tied its tongue by voting for a resolution that made no mention of UN inspectors or resolution and told the President to use whatever force he deemed necessary." Congress should "inquire as to why U.S. citizens should not trust the judgment of a man who played such an integral role" in renewing ties to Hussein and the Iraqi military.

The day after his UN speech of February while at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Powell told Senators, "I don't like war...Nobody likes war.  The President doesn't like war, doesn't want a war.  But this is a problem we cannot walk away from." 

In March, 25 members of congress co-sponsored legislation to repeal the October 2002 Congressional resolution which had been in favor of going to war.  It never came to a vote.

6.  Must Congress declare war before the President begins a war against Iraq?
The US Constitution is clear that only Congress may declare war, according to Article I, Section 8.  (See "Who Declares War?..." for historical perspective) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) feels that the Congressional resolution "leaves the door open" and "surrenders to the president authority which the Constitution explicitly...reserves for Congress." The 1973 War Powers Resolution, at the end of the Vietnam War, was an attempt to limit Presidential wartime power. See also "History" FAQs.  Bush's lawyers declared that he already has the legal right to go to war without a Congressional vote, but after Congressional uproar, the President on September 4 began to discuss and/or consult with Congress about the invasion. Congress voted its approval on October 10. 

Wrote Founding Father James Madison in 1793, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not the executive department."  Madison worried that if the president had that power "the temptation would be too great for any one man."

A lawsuit was filed challenging President Bush's authority to attack Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12689-2003Mar11?language=printer
It was signed by 73 constitutional law professors who decry the "radical proposition" of the President launching a "massive invasion" without the consent of Congress.  The suit was thrown out by a federal appeals court on March 13.  

Congress has declared war five times, most recently on December 8, 1941.  Since World War II, undeclared wars have been fought in Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Grenada, the Persian Gulf, and others. Also see "History" FAQ section for more on Vietnam and the Persian Gulf and see "P.S." for post-war comparison to Vietnam and to other wars.

Also see "Bush to Consult" and "The Case Against the Iraq War."