Congressman Blames Washington Post For War in Iraq

[Tobias March]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/dem_rep_obey_ri.php

While I have no problem with criticizing media editorialising - once again there's this notion being put out there that governments are victims of media. So if a politician makes a flawed decision it's either the fault of the media? Or only history can truly assess the 'rightness', of that decision?

Youtube video included in the article. Here's the extract:

Dem Rep. David Obey

Let me submit to you the problem we have today is not that we didn't listen enough to people like The Washington Post. It's that we listened too much. They endorsed going to war in the first place. They helped drive the drumbeat that drove almost two-thirds of the people in this chamber to vote for that misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised war that has destroyed our influence over a third of the world. So I make no apology if the moral sensibilities of some people on this floor, or the editorial writers of The Washington Post, are offended because they don't like the specific language contained in our benchmarks or in our timelines.

What matters in the end is not what the specific language is. What matters is whether or not we produce a product today that puts pressure on this Administration and sends a message to Iraq, to the Iraqi politicians that we're going to end the permanent long-term dead end babysitting service. That's what we're trying to do. And if The Washington Post is offended about the way we do it, that's just too bad.

[spoon_jenkins]

Saying that he's blaming the war on the Washington Post is like saying Al Gore said that he invented the internet. He's just saying that they supported the war and didn't question it enough.

Just because politicians deserve blame for not standing up and enduring the political consequences, media deserves blame for not questioning and investigating. They acted like cheerleaders, in my opinion, so they wouldn't be branded as American and lose money.

ETA: Let's also note that Obey voted for the Authorization of Military Force in Iraq, so it's not like he has significant individual that he's deflecting.

[Drew Van T.]

I admit that the idea of giving Charles Krauthammer, George F. Will and Robert Kagan the kind of hearty b**ch-slapping that they have richly earned with their writings is an appealing one.

But that would be like slapping around a puppet master's puppets: quite pointless. The only one out of that trio who was backing preventive war (in this case as an instrument to be used in Iraq) with true intellectual conviction was Kagan. The others would have vigorously opposed the idea if the Bush administration had vigorously opposed it. They were just echoing their political boss; and by doing so they did indeed magnify his power somewhat, of course.

[Serik]

heh Congress will never blame itself for the war, not now, not ever. More excuse making.

Furthermore, what does this say about the Congressmen who authorized war? That they're so weakwilled that one newspaper editorial can sway their decision making?

To this day, I still blame Congress for this war more than the administration.

[spoon_jenkins]

To this day, I still blame Congress for this war more than the administration.
So the ones who decided to start the war, who orchestrated it, who created the plan, who cherry-picked and misrepresented the intelligence (and presented that rather than fair representation), and who had control of the executive branch agencies (such as the intelligence apparatuses and State Department) deserves less blame than Congress. And you believe that despite the fact that the resolution mention the U.N. Security Council, so in theory one might think that voting for it would lead to a more cautious approach than Bush took. Can't say I agree.

[Jack Zodiac]

What kind of backward-ass- ?

I'm blaming "Schindler's List" for the Holocaust.

[Serik]

My view of the government: each branch is self-serving and strives to advance its own agenda. And that's exactly what the administration did. It used its agencies and spokespeople to advance an agenda. It was stupid and misguided, but an agenda nonetheless.

Congress overwhelmingly supported the war – most Democrats included. But Congress took the executive’s claims at face value. They assumed that intelligence data was accurate and fairly represented, a fatally naive and misguided assumption. Perhaps some Congressmen feared the spin machine portraying them as pro-terrorist and anti-American had they voted against the authorization. Fair enough. But you reap what you sow.

I'm not absolving the administration, but had Congress, the main organ of this government, done its damned job, this war never would’ve happened.

Our system breaks down not when one branch takes an outlandish position, but when the other branch fails to call them on it. That’s the story of these past 7 years: the administration continuously expands its power and Congress does little, if anything, to stop it.

[Mike Smash!]

I have to agree with Serik on this one. I believe the legislative branch's responsibility for this war rivals the Bush Administration's. The purpose of a three branch government is that one checks the other two and vice versa.

There's a good reason that the Founders didn't want this power in the hands of just one man. They'd had plenty of experience with a history of European wars declared on a whim, that's why in Article I Section VIII, only CONGRESS has the legal authority to declare war. Their job is to hold the President back until he provides the evidence for war and then calls for an official declaration of war. What they did is give him all the cards and say "Whatever. We trust you." A blind man could see what Bush had planned, so they cannot run from that vote and pretend that it was anything but a vote for war.

When Congress voted to cede their constitutional power to declare war to the President (an unconstitutional act), they essentially said that they don't care about the Constitutio. They gave the benefit of the doubt to George W. Bush and let him have the sole authority to declare war. Had they voted No, this war wouldn't have happened.

Hell, in everything Bush has done, Congress bears responsbility in not reigning him in or shooting him down. And many of his biggest initiatives were carried out when the opposition party controlled a House of Congress.

While certainly the White House wrote the book of this war, it was Congress that made it a bestseller.

[spoon_jenkins]

Congress overwhelmingly supported the war – most Democrats included.
I've already debunked this previously. It's true that a majority of Democrats in the Senate (something like 28-22) vote for the authorization. However, the claim that Congressional Democrats mostly voted for the war is false. Most Democrats voted against the war. Despite the vote in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, the Democrats voted 126-81 against the war.

I'm not absolving the administration, but had Congress, the main organ of this government, done its damned job, this war never would’ve happened.
But I don't see how that means that Congress should receive more blame. Why let the architects of the war off the hook relative to other folks?

[Mike Smash!]

I've already debunked this previously. It's true that a majority of Democrats in the Senate (something like 28-22) vote for the authorization. However, the claim that Congressional Democrats mostly voted for the war is false. Most Democrats voted against the war. Despite the vote in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, the Democrats voted 126-81 against the war.

Spoon, the Democrats controlled the Senate when the Iraq resolution was voted on (October 2002). Had they all voted no, the war would not have happened. Hell, if they'd all voted no, except for Joe Lieberman, they war still would not have happened.

But I don't see how that means that Congress should receive more blame. Why let the architects of the war off the hook relative to other folks?

I don't think he's letting them off the hook, and while I disagree with him that they are more responsible than Bush, their hands are nearly as dirty.

[spoon_jenkins]

Spoon, the Democrats controlled the Senate when the Iraq resolution was voted on (October 2002). Had they all voted no, the war would not have happened. Hell, if they'd all voted no, except for Joe Lieberman, they war still would not have happened.
I agree that if more Democrats had opposed the Iraq War, they could have stopped it. But when I see the claim that most Democrats in Congress voted for the war, I'm going to contradict it because it was inaccurate.

I think the failure of Congress to demand more evidence, a solid plan, etc. showed a lack of political courage. But I don't think it opposing the Administration was an easy thing to do. I think there was a strong public sentiment of "rally round the flag." Hindsight makes questions a lot easier. I was opposed to invading Iraq because I thought that there was no evidence of any connection against Al-Qaeda and we shouldn't waste military resources on a non-imminent threat rather than Al-Qaeda.

But I didn't think the war would be as awful as it turned out to be. For one thing, I thought someone with the responsibility of the Presidency would act with basic competence. I thought that when President Bush said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs, that Bush must have had solid proof of WMDs that he could describe in detail for intelligence reasons. And I thought that any President would thoroughly work out the contingencies so we wouldn't have total chaos. President Bush fell lower than my lowest expectations for a President's competence. So in part, I feel that those who voted for the war probably also expected a higher level of Presidential competence.

On the other hand, members of Congress have access to a lots of information and resources. We should certainly hold them to a higher standard than the average citizen. And of course, a war is a serious undertaking. Expecting it to turn out better than it did certainly isn't good enough to go to war on. They should believe (based on solid information) that a war is both just and necessary before voting to allow it.

[Mike Smash!]

I agree that if more Democrats had opposed the Iraq War, they could have stopped it.

Would have stopped it.

I think the failure of Congress to demand more evidence, a solid plan, etc. showed a lack of political courage. But I don't think it opposing the Administration was an easy thing to do. I think there was a strong public sentiment of "rally round the flag." Hindsight makes questions a lot easier. I was opposed to invading Iraq because I thought that there was no evidence of any connection against Al-Qaeda and we shouldn't waste military resources on a non-imminent threat rather than Al-Qaeda.

Spoon, it wasn't an easy thing to do, but it would have been easier had they demanded a real debate on the issue. Most Democratic leaders didn't want to have that debate. The mainstream media didn't want to have that debate.

But if the Dems had put their foot down and at least voted it down and demanded in unison that Bush provide the ironclad proof before we invaded and then called for an official declaration of war, this debacle wouldn't have happened.

The "rally 'round the flag" mentality took hold because the opposition party led it happen in their silence and in their attempts to shut up dissident Dems calling bullshit on the whole thing.

But I didn't think the war would be as awful as it turned out to be. For one thing, I thought someone with the responsibility of the Presidency would act with basic competence. I thought that when President Bush said there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs, that Bush must have had solid proof of WMDs that he could describe in detail for intelligence reasons. And I thought that any President would thoroughly work out the contingencies so we wouldn't have total chaos. President Bush fell lower than my lowest expectations for a President's competence. So in part, I feel that those who voted for the war probably also expected a higher level of Presidential competence.

Competenence doesn't make the war any less in violation of international law or any less unconstitutional. Earlier that same year, Bush Administration officials like Condi Rice and Colin Powell were commenting publically that Iraq had no major WMD program, but no Dem leaders called him on it. In fact, some like Kerry and Lieberman were actively cheerleading for an invasion even before the vote and worked to shut people like Kucinich and Conyers up.

On the other hand, members of Congress have access to a lots of information and resources. We should certainly hold them to a higher standard than the average citizen. And of course, a war is a serious undertaking. Expecting it to turn out better than it did certainly isn't good enough to go to war on. They should believe (based on solid information) that a war is both just and necessary before voting to allow it.

We attacked a country that did not attack us, that posed no threat to its neighbors and didn't have the capacity to do either. Even the Bush Administration admitted this in early 2001.

[Michael P]

Well, hey, the Washington Post should have gotten better intel before it exercised its power to approve the use of troops.

Oh, wait, they don't have that power and never had.

[spoon_jenkins]

[Most Democratic leaders didn't want to have that debate. The mainstream media didn't want to have that debate.
The mainstream media didn't want to have that debate; so Obey had a point.

But if the Dems had put their foot down and at least voted it down and demanded in unison that Bush provide the ironclad proof before we invaded and then called for an official declaration of war, this debacle wouldn't have happened.
I'm skeptical that voting down the authorization in October 2002 would have prevented the war (which is not to say they shouldn't have tried). Bush's approval-disapproval numbers in the last Gallup poll prior to the vote were 67-28 (compare to Bush's 35-56 before the 2006 election). I think we very well could have seen 275 Republicans elected to the House in November 2002.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

While certainly the White House wrote the book of this war, it was Congress that made it a bestseller.

How long have you been waiting to use that one?

[Clint Barton]

We are all to blame.

[Clint Barton]

Double post.

[rick]

We are all to blame.


I wish that this wasn't the truth.

But it is.

[Mike Smash!]

How long have you been waiting to use that one?I just made it up on the spot, actually.

[spoon_jenkins]

And I don't think this is a situation for Greens to pat themselves on the back. It's more like a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

The Green Party and other anti-war activists opposed the war in Afghanistan. I think that by the time attention turned to Iraq, the credibility of some anti-war folks was undermined because many, many people now saw the movement as unreasonable.

I remember attended an event involved friends of my brother. They had an anti-war puppet show and poetry reading. Essentially, there was no argumentation at the event beyond repeating "no blood for oil." To make a concrete difference and influence non-pacifist people, a different approach was needed.

[Mike Smash!]

The mainstream media didn't want to have that debate; so Obey had a point.

He certainly did, but I don't give them sole responsibility for the war, but they certainly contributed to it.

Bush is only as bad as people have let him get. Congress' job is to cut him off when he steps out of line. They didn't. Even when they controlled a House. I'd argue that some of his worst excesses happened under that Democratic Senate.

I'm skeptical that voting down the authorization in October 2002 would have prevented the war (which is not to say they shouldn't have tried). Bush's approval-disapproval numbers in the last Gallup poll prior to the vote were 67-28 (compare to Bush's 35-56 before the 2006 election). I think we very well could have seen 275 Republicans elected to the House in November 2002.

It would have dealt a serious blow and would have collapsed the appearance of a bipartisan consensus for the invasion. If they'd forced the debate, if they'd not given him nearly 20 standing ovations while Bush lied his way through the State of the Union, If they'd put their foot down for the vote (they lost the 2002 elections anyways, you remember), If they'd taken a stand.... I doubt the numbers would have looked like that at all.

The Republicans in a similar situation aren't afraid to fight. Recently, they filibustered a non-binding resolution against a surge of troops for a very unpopular war. But they did and they won. The Democrats couldn't even muster the people to filibuster Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

The Republicans are well aware of what the Democrats do not seem to get: that you have to spend political capital to get political capital. It's a leaky water balloon; the longer you wait to throw it, the wetter you get and the less of an impact it'll make when you actually throw it.

Republicans know this and this is why they can win battles when even reality and common sense are against them. This is why the Democrats can't win until the Republicans destroy themselves.

And if they'd made some real noise and kicked up a fight in the lead up the war, the press would have had no excuse but to publish it, even if they were to cowed to power to raise any real questions themselves.

[Mike Smash!]

And I don't think this is a situation for Greens to pat themselves on the back. It's more like a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.

Spoon, you're guilty of what we both have criticized Samurai for in the past with his retorts of "Well, Clinton did (______)!"

I have not once brought up the Greens in this thread. We are certainly not perfect and we have a long way to go in some areas, but our problems do not absolve the Democratic Party of anything -- which is what we were talking about before you tried to change the subject.

The Green Party and other anti-war activists opposed the war in Afghanistan. I think that by the time attention turned to Iraq, the credibility of some anti-war folks was undermined because many, many people now saw the movement as unreasonable.

Yes, we did oppose the war in Afghanistan and we're calling for our troops to come home from there as well as in Iraq. It sounds like you agree with us now, but that's a different debate. I am a bit flattered that you think that we had this big of an impact on the war, certainly if you want to compare it to the Democratic Senate.

The anti-war movement's response to the invasion of Afghanistan was so under the media's radar that I find it laughable that you point to any impact it had. I'm willing to admit it.

I remember attended an event involved friends of my brother. They had an anti-war puppet show and poetry reading. Essentially, there was no argumentation at the event beyond repeating "no blood for oil." To make a concrete difference and influence non-pacifist people, a different approach was needed.

Yes, anti-war folks sometimes have serious problems getting their message across in a constructive way and sometimes they do the same stupid things over and over and expect different results. Sometimes they're very sectarian. These are the things I bang my head against on a regular basis, but the anti-war movement is not the Greens.

In fact, it's almost uniformly progressive Democrat and I regularly have to fight for them to allow non-Democrats to speak at their rallies (like say, Greens, Libertarians or anti-war conservatives).

While we certainly are a part of this movement, it's a different animal from us and you can't smear us with a bad puppet show you once saw. And I still find it laughable that you're actually comparing ineffective activism to knowingly and willingly cheerleading for and voting for an unconstitutional and illegal preemptive war and being afraid to speak out against it (or just going along with it).

And even if we did fail in some way, as R.P. McMurphy put, "at least [we] goddamn tried. At least [we] did that much."