Should Congress delay voting on Iraq until after the election?

Great Debates
1

From the Wall St. Journal. I’ve
[quoted]
(http://online.wsj.com/archive/retrieve@1.cgi?skurnick/text/wsjie/data/SB1031532241979606875.djm/&d2hconverter=display-d2h&NVP=&template=atlas-srch-searchrecent-nf.tmpl&form=atlas-srch-searchrecent-nf.html&from-and=AND&to-and=AND&sort=Article-Doc-Date+desc&qand=&bool_query=daschle&dbname=wsjie&named=dbname&location=article&period=%3A27&maxitems=30&HI=) farily extensively, because the original requires paid registration.

The WSJ presents one side of the debate. The other side might argue:

  1. It will truly take a long time for Congress to give proper consideration to how to proceed.

  2. It’s not appropriate for the war resolution to distract from the election.

  3. Bush started the political games by timing the request to Congress just 2 months before an election.

OTOH, I would respond:

– since the development of Iraq nukes may be imminent, delay could be dangerous.

– The election should be about Iraq. That’s the most serious issue today.

– Politics is less important than the welfare of the American people.

I actually am sympathetic to #3. It’s quite possible that Bush (or perhaps Tom DeLay) was playing politics to some degree in their timing. If so, the Dems left themselves vulnerable. They should have brought up this vote long before the election if they wanted it not to interfere with their campaign.

If the Dems do persist in delaying a vote, I think their delay can become a campaign issue that could hurt them.

2

Indeed. They have attempted to time the election when representatives would be back home campaigning. This even reminds me of Louis XIV keeping his ruling aristocracy at Versailles in order to weaken their rule at home.

I just don’t see any compelling reason why the vote should not be put off. If such haste is necessary, I believe that Bush should make a stronger case.

3

Putting off the vote plays into the hands of the anti-intervention crowd. Why would that be anymore valid then playing into the hands of the pro-intervention crowd?

There is nothing wrong with making the invasion of Iraq an electoral issue. It is at least as important as much of the garbage that politician routinely use as platforms.

4

I fully believe that Saddam Hussein wishes to have nuclear weapons, as well as large-scale chemical and biological weapons, at his disposal. I also believe that the U.S. should not be proceeding unilaterally with action against Iraq.

But . . . the most important thing facing Americans today? Come on. Even if Hussein currently has a nuclear weapon in his possession, he lacks the delivery system to directly threaten American, and he isn’t about to nuke Israel, because Israel will nuke his ass right back.

Meanwhile, we’ve got:

–Laughably ineffective airport security, one year after the attacks;
–A “Homeland Security” department that appears to have its head up its collective ass;
–An economy that’s still experiencing massive ups and downs, with the fallout from the accounting scandals yet to be seen, and a possibly serious round of deflation around the corner;
–Plenty of other domestic concerns.

Sorry, but I don’t buy Iraq as issue #1. I’ll sleep just fine if Saddam is off the burner until November. He’s been kept in relative check just fine via UN sanctions for a decade, and I don’t think his activities are approaching some flashpoint that can’t wait for two months.

I also don’t think that GWB wants to be known to history as the President who tested the War Powers Act.

5

We will gave to wait until tomorrow to see if it is an issue to deal with.

6

And wait again until the 12th, when Bush addresses the UN.

7

I’m not asserting that Iraq is the #1 issue facing Ameicans today, pl, nor do I think Brutus is.

Rather, the decision of whether or not to make war on Iraq is the #1 issue. Whether on supports going to war or not, a wrong decision could have pretty bad consequences for America and for the world.

8

The administration spent most of the summer telling us that “There are no plans to attack Iraq on the president’s desk” Why should it be up to the democrats to force a confrontation when the president tells them that there * is no issue * yet ? To do so would be to presume that the president was being disingenuous. Bush chose the timing: ( see: Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq ) If he wants a rush job by congress, he has the responsibility to come up with some credible evidence that shows a need for speedy action.
From the supplied link:

9

On the other hand, why in the hell would I want a lame-duck Congress deciding on anything of such gravity as another war?

Let me also remind you that none of the FY2003 appropriations bills have officially gone into conference yet, and some of them haven’t been touched at all. It’s already looking as if a lame-duck Congress is going to be putting the final stamp of approval on many of those spending bills–and the nasty little special-interest parasites that will ride along with them. Do you really want these guys crafting a spending bill after many of them have nothing to lose?

So to debate it now will be to ensure bad legislation after the elections. Debating it after the elections will ensure that some of the voting Members will be from districts that have chosen not to have those Members represent them in the next term.

The only thing left is to keep the damned football off the field until January, which is what any honest politician intent on presenting such a weighty issue before Congress should have done in the first place. The lack of subtlety surrounding this entire maneuver makes me begin to believe that it was actually conceived by the President himself.

10

Historically, the two parties have been seen as:

Republicans = guns (defense/lawnorder).

Democrats = butter (jobs/economy).

The administration is attempting to frame the next election as a referenda on ‘guns’ via Iraq.

Brilliant tactics. Despicable, but I do have to give them credit: nobody’s talking about Enron any more.

11

The Wall Street Journal said that?!

That’s a lie.

President George Herbert Walker Bush waited until two days after the 1990 midterm elections to propose taking the offensive* against Iraq.

I was pissed about that at the time, and I still am. He should have had the courage to put it on the table in time for people to factor it into their voting. He didn’t.

Democratic evasion, my ass. You don’t vote on something that isn’t even being discussed.

  • [sub]Yeah, we had troops over there already, but in “Desert Shield,” a defensive/embargo operation. We were ensuring that Saddam couldn’t export oil, and preventing him from annexing Saudi oilfields in addition to Kuwait.[/sub]

OK, now that we’ve corrected the historical record, when should Congress vote on a possible war on Iraq?

Only after Bush makes his formal case to Congress, that’s for sure.

:eek:

Certainly. For instance, they already know the Administration has admitted the evidence linking Iraq and al-Queda is weak. So the potential Iraqi war must be regarded as a separate undertaking from the War on Terror.

With respect to “weapons of mass destruction,” there are three kinds: nuclear, chemical, and biological. The Reagan Administration knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons on the Kurds back in 1988, so that’s old news. Saddam may have already had bioweapons back then, too; I’m not sure what our intelligence people knew and when they knew it.

As far as nukes are concerned, Iraq is apparently several years away from making nukes on their own, and it’s not likely that they could get enough fissile material from somewhere else to make a bomb much sooner. Meanwhile, Iran is thought to be considerably closer to being able to develop nukes, and Pakistan - a military dictatorship in an Islamic country - already has them.

I’m having a hard time seeing an obvious case for why Iraq, and if Iraq, why now.

Especially as we’re only partway into our war on al-Queda, which IMHO should be our priority. And there’s no evidence that an attack on Iraq would seriously hinder their operations.

If there is a better case to be made, slow deliberations might be more appropriate than a premature vote against war on the basis of the evidence now available.

12

december wrote:

If it’s so all-fired important to hear the “Voice of the People” on the Iraq issue, then why is Bush pressing to hold the Congressional vote now, before the voice of the people can be heard (in the Fall elections)?

If you are genuinely concerned about the Voice of the People (and I know you are – I know you’re not just being a Republican Party shill) (ahem), then why not make the Iraq question an issue in the upcoming elections, and then hold the war vote after the new Congress convenes, with the mandate of the people in hand.

13

It’s a question of trust and knowledge. Congress knows how the people feel; they have access to opinion polls, letters from constituents, etc. I don’t know where my Congressman and Senators stand on this issue. I won’t know until they actually vote or, at least declare a firm position.

I also have greater confidence that they will vote the people’s wishes if they have to face us in a month, rather than 2 years from now.

Squeegee, was it brilliance by the Reps or stupidity by the Dems? It didn’t take an Einstein to figure out that this would be a good time to bring the Iraq issue to the front burner. The Dems should have planned a riposte.

14

So you want the issue decided by a Congress elected two years ago, before the “War on Terrorism” even began? Seems like the Fall elections will provide a more current barometer, no?

I suppose that it is an issue of trust, and you (and Bush) don’t seem to trust the voting public.

I’m quite confident that members of our free press will present the issue to candidates in the upcoming elections. Along with all of the other issues facing Congress.

Oh…

Wait…

Could that be it?

Could it be that you and Bush don’t want the next Congress to be elected on any other issue except their position on the war with Iraq? Could it be that you and Bush would like to shift the focus away from domestic issues? Could it be that you want to use negative votes on the war to challenge the “Americanism” of incumbents, the better to distract voters from domestic concerns?

Nah…That couldn’t be it.

15

Sure, the Dems walked right into it – but are you trying to say that it was only the Dems in congress calling for some advice&concent on Iraq? If so, that’s certainly not my recollection; it was coming from both sides of the aisle. Do you concur?

In any case, it was the administration that has successfully framed the debate, which has become, “should we invade Iraq?”, when perhaps it should be “Why is the economy in the shitter and what can be done about it?” and “What do we do about corporate misdeeds” or “What do we do about Al Queda?” (remember them?) or “How can we grease the ME peace process?”

Again I say, brilliant (and thoroughly direputable) tactics, bravo to whatever white house hack thought up the timing and managed to pull this off. I’m thoroughly amazed/disgusted that all sides seem to have fallen for this cynical dog-and-pony show.

16

If the Demoblicans are smart, they would give Bush full free Iraqi reign tomorrow, with a one-year time limit. Now that Iraq is a non-issue, they then can have the campaigns refocus back on the economy.

17

I agree with capacitor. Of course, they can’t get the voting over that fast. I heard Trent Lott say that he thought both houses could vote on this by the first week of October.