Hillary and her advisers thought she could breeze through the primaries, and wanted to preserve her national security "toughness" against the Republican in the general. I think that goes a long way towards explaining why she never outright apologized for her vote.

I opposed the war long before the AUMF. So did millions of other Americans who marched the streets. We saw war coming - it was clear as day. We knew we couldn't stop it, but we still tried. I cannot believe that any sitting Senator did not know that giving Bush any authority was a dangerous idea. Some realized it was a bad idea, and voted the right way. Sadly, some did not.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think the result would have been had all the Democrats, as a party, hung together and voted against the amendment. What do you think would have happened next in Bush's drive to war?

You can't post a diary like this!

SEE: Top 10 inane reasons why anything you say about Hilary can be twisted to make you into a misogynist and also feeds the persecution complex.

It's a front pager!

The poll should include a 'Yes, that's one of the reasons I support Obama, but I'd vote for her over McSame' option.

I do mind giving her significant blame, because that re-writes history.

This was belongs 85% to Bush, 10% to the jingoistic media, and the other 5% split up to everybody that had a chance to make a stand and didn't.

Bush used the full power of the Presidency for well over a year to push for and propagandize for this war.  He did not hesitate to lie to the public and to the Congress to drive up support for the War.  

Our national intelligence services have multiple functions, but their primary task is to provide information to the President.  No other individual, with the possible exception of the President's close advisors, has the President's level of information both about foreign threats and about U.S. capacities to monitor and oppose such threats.

Traditionally, and under the Constitution and the court cases interpreting it, diplomatic and military powers are wielded almost exclusively by the President.  Although the Congress is obliged and has the duty to act as a check on the President's power, it is only expected to check those powers when things go wrong.  The ordinary and traditional division of duties is that the President enacts foreign policy and the Congress oversees it and, unless it finds wrongdoing, assists the President.

As a branch of government playing what is possibly best described as a secondary role in terms of foreign policy, with secondary information-gathering abilities and secondary Constitutional powers, Congress has traditionally taken the President at his word on foreign policy threats unless it has concrete information to the contrary.  

Remember that Bush had not yet been caught red-handed lying in the Fall of 2002.  Yes, some of us were very suspicious about a number of his WMD statements, and I'm proud to say I was one of those persons: but I hated Bush with a passion by that time.  Those tasked to assist him in managing our national foreign policy were probably best advised not to approach their task with such feelings for the President they were supposed to be assisting.

Remember, there's no mechanism for Congress directly running foreign policy, running the military, running the intelligence agencies.  They all work for the President.  All the Congress can do--and really, in terms of war and peace, it is a very significant constitutional question as to whether Congress can even do this much, although it claims the power--is veto a particular action and send the President back to the drawing board to come up, under his auspices alone, with another action.

Yes, some people saw through it anyway, and some people--almost all of them in safe, liberal districts with no immediate plans to run for national office--voted no on the resolution.  More power to them.  But, at least in 2002, I can see a lot of merit in Congress giving the President the benefit of the doubt in terms of a threat to national security.  The fact that any individual congressperson voted aye on that measure is in no way, shape, or form an indication that person would've invaded Iraq on his or her own.

No, invading Iraq belongs to George Bush.  There are a few other folks who aren't lilly-pure on the subject, but it's his war from stem to stern.  To the extent Congress aided him, it did so under political pressure that he relentlessly created and as part of a constitutional structure that reserves that decision almost entirely to him.

One of the things I can't stop thinking about when it comes to the war is just how catastrophic it has been on so many fronts. Think about how this war will affect this country for literally decades to come. We will be paying for this, financially, for the foreseeable future. Think about what effect it will have when we have tens, if not hundreds of thousands of veterans back in the US, suffering from PTSD and God knows what else. Think about how much extra money the typical American family is paying because of $107/bbl oil. The rising cost of food. Look at the airline industry - fuel costs (among other things) has led to 3 carriers filing for bankruptcy.

It has been an unmitigated disaster.