Another Take On The So-Called War Vote
by RonChusidWilliam Raspberry realizes the importance to the anti-war movement of refuting the claims that the IWR vote was vote to go to war. He has an explanation which includes an good analogy:
Except they didn’t really vote us into war. As I recall, that vote authorizing the president to use force against Iraq was analogous to a trade union’s strike vote. When negotiations bog down, union leaders often will ask their members for a resolution authorizing a strike. For members to refuse such a vote would cripple their own leadership. But to grant it is not the same as ending negotiations and launching a strike. It is a way of steeling the leadership, giving it a powerful negotiating tool.
(Hat tip to Upper Left for finding this op-ed).
Filed under: Iraq, OP/ED's | Get Permalink or trackback |
Good article with caveats. Raspberry failed to mention the Kerry plan or the Feingold mark of everybody out by end of 2006. So there is no unified plan for Iraq. Of course, there doesn’t have to be one constitutionally. The only bunch who should have a specific plan for Iraq don’t have one (at least not one that’s realistic).
Other than that good article. If there’s one thing I can’t stand its the pundits (and other supposedly educated people) who gripe that Democrats aren’t helping to clean up the mess in Iraq. Since when are the Democrats supposed to take on the role of cleaning up Republican messes- especailly when we don’t control either house of Congress or the presidency? If we controlled one or both institutions that would be one thing (“hey we’re in charge now and we’ve got to solve problems and govern, even if we didn’t cause these problems).
But how the hell are Dems supposed to solve problems if we are not in charge? Sure I want the grownups to be in charge just as much as the next guy or gal, but we gotta wait until at least November 2006 regardless.