Had the rest of the Democratic Party voted with anti-war Democrats against the Iraq War, there would have been enough votes to prevent the war. The Spratt amendment would have passed, the final vote in the House would have ended in a tie, Senator Robert Byrd could have filibustered the resolution, the Levin and Durbin amendments would have passed, and the final vote in the Senate would have been 52-48 against the war resolution.
See the breakdown of major Congressional votes about the Iraq War below. You realize that the Republican Party functions as a political party, with impressive party discipline, but the Democratic Party doesn't.
First, take a look at the Lee amendment: "October 10, 2002: B. Lee amendment that would urge the President to work through the United Nations to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, and urge the use of peaceful means to resolve the issue, including the resumption of weapons inspections. Rejected in House, 72-355 (roll call vote #452)" (Alan W. Brown, "U.S. Armed Forces Abroad: Selected Congressional Roll Call Votes Since 1982," <a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/RL31693.pdf">May 8, 2003</a>).
Here's the breakdown:
<blockquote>FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 452 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 10:47 AM AUTHOR(S): Lee of California Substitute Amendment QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 1 219 2 Democratic 70 136 2 Independent 1 TOTALS 72 355 4
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll452.xml></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, there would have been 210 yeas and 219 nays. The motion would not have carried, but it would have sent a strong message to the Senate and the White House.
Next, the Spratt amendment: "Spratt amendment to authorize the U.S. military to support any new U.N.Security Council resolution that orders the elimination, by force if required, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and the means of producing such weapons. The President would be required to seek congressional authority before using military force against Iraq without such a U.N. resolution. Rejected in House, 155-270 (roll call vote #453)" (Alan W. Brown, "U.S. Armed Forces Abroad: Selected Congressional Roll Call Votes Since 1982," <a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/RL31693.pdf">May 8, 2003</a>).
Now, look at the votes:
<blockquote>FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 453 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 12:28 PM AUTHOR(S): Spratt of South Carolina Substitute Amendment QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment
Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 7 210 5 Democratic 147 60 1 Independent 1 TOTALS 155 270 6
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll453.xml></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, it would have passed, 216-210.
And the Kucinich motion to recommit the war resolution to the House International Relations Committee? "Kucinich motion to recommit the bill to the House International Relations Committee with instructions that it be reported back with language that would require the President, prior to the use of force, to report to Congress on the effect of war with Iraq, including estimates of its impact on the U.S. economy, Iraqi citizens, and international stability. Rejected in House, 101-325 (roll call vote #454)" (Alan W. Brown, "U.S. Armed Forces Abroad: Selected Congressional Roll Call Votes Since 1982," <a href="http://www.thememoryhole.org/crs/RL31693.pdf">May 8, 2003</a>).
<blockquote>FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 454 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 2:47 PM QUESTION: On Motion to Recommit with Instructions BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 1 219 2 Democratic 99 106 3 Independent 1 TOTALS 101 325 5
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, the motion still would not have carried (210-219), but, again, it would have sent a strong message to the Senate and the White House.
Here's the final vote:
<blockquote>FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 455 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H J RES 114 YEA-AND-NAY 10-Oct-2002 3:05 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Yeas Nays PRES NV Republican 215 6 2 Democratic 81 126 1 Independent 1 TOTALS 296 133 3
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted against the resolution, the final vote would have been a tie of 215-215.
In the Senate, on the most important cloture motion, Democrats, for once, exhibited remarkable party discipline, _in order to side with Republicans against Senator Byrd's threat to filibuster.
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.J.Res. 45 ) Vote Number: 230 Vote Date: October 3, 2002, 04:17 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to Vote Counts: YEAs 95 NAYs 1 [Byrd (D-WV)] Not Voting 4 [Akaka (D-HI), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC), Inouye (D-HI)]
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00230></blockquote>
The Democratic Party didn't even vote for the Byrd amendment to "provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces." 21 Democrats (19 voting nay, 2 not voting) sided with 47 Republicans to kill it.
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended ) Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 09:43 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4869 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq ) Statement of Purpose: To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension. Vote Counts: YEAs 31 NAYs 66 Not Voting 3
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, the Byrd amendment would have passed, 52-47.
Then, 28 Democrats once again sided with 47 Republicans to vote for cloture, this time on the Lieberman amendement.
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Lieberman Amdt. No. 4856 ) Vote Number: 233 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 11:12 AM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq ) Statement of Purpose: In the nature of a substitute. Vote Counts: YEAs 75 NAYs 25
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00233></blockquote>
The cloture motion would have failed, 47-53, had all Democrats voted against it.
38 Democrats join 48 Republicans to kill another amendment offered by Senator Byrd that would have clarified that "no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq".
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Byrd Amdt. No. 4868 ) Vote Number: 234 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 12:50 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4868 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq ) Statement of Purpose: To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq. Vote Counts: YEAs 14 NAYs 86
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, the amendment would have passed, 52-48.
28 Democrats, with 47 Republicans, killed the mild Levin amendment to qualify the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces "pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council."
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Levin Amdt. No. 4862 ) Vote Number: 235 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 03:08 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4862 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq ) Statement of Purpose: To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 24 NAYs 75 Not Voting 1
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236></blockquote>
Had all Democrats voted for it, the amendment would have passed, 52-47.
What about the Durbin amendment to restrict the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces to "an imminent threat" rather than "the continuing threat"?
<blockquote> U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 4865 ) Vote Number: 236 Vote Date: October 10, 2002, 04:48 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4865 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (Further Resolution on Iraq ) Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Vote Counts: YEAs 30 NAYs 70
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236></blockquote>
21 Democrats, with 49 Republicans, said nay, and the amendment died. Had all Democrats voted for it, it would have passed, 51-49.
Now, the final vote in the Senate:
<blockquote>U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23 Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237></blockquote>
29 Democrats joined with 48 Republicans to produce the majority of 77. Had all Democrats voted against the resolution, the resolution would have failed, 52-48.
In short, Congress couldn't have mustered the support for the Iraq War without pro-war Democrats. Anti-war politicians in the Democratic Party should leave the party and establish a new one with Jeffords (I-VT), Chafee (R-RI), Greens, etc. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>