The Senate will mark the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq this week by voting to revoke the outdated military force authorization that saved the war, a bipartisan effort to formally end the misguided conflict that America is still paying for.
Nineteen Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to proceed with the repeal on Thursday, a symbolic move that supporters say is designed to reaffirm Congress’ authority to declare war. But leaving aside the 2001 broad authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) that every presidential administration since September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have used to wage war around the globe.
There is broad agreement in Congress and among the community this bad intelligence led to President George W. Bush’s decision to launch air strikes on Iraq on March 19, 2003, and cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and trillions of US dollars lost.
But there are still some Republican senators who argue that good things came out of the war and that the whole enterprise was worth it. That view was not shared by more recent GOP attendees in Congress, but reflects a party that has changed under former President Donald Trump who has increasingly questioned U.S. involvement abroad, including in Ukraine.
The original vote to authorize the war, 77-23, followed a months-long campaign by the Bush administration to sell the public on its decision to invade Iraq, which was made in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Administration officials used false and erroneous intelligence to claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, at the ready.
“Suffice it to say, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Vice President Dick Cheney said in August 2002. “There is no doubt that he is amassing these weapons against our friends, allies and against us.”
In the days before Congress passed the resolution authorizing the war, Bush himself raised the specter of nuclear annihilation and lied that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks by discussing the relationship between Hussein’s government and al Qaeda. Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. United Nations weapons inspectors were unable to find evidence of a WMD program underway before the invasion. Later, the US found no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons that could be used, or any program to develop them.
But this is a lie and a satire convinced many of the American public. On the eve of congressional elections, 79% of the public said they believed Hussein was close to or already had nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, 66% believe that Iraq “aided terrorists in the September 11 attacks.” In total, 62% supported the invasion.
Despite, or perhaps because of, this popular support, the Bush administration heavily politicized the congressional discourse of the resolution. He made sure to push in the last week of the 2002 midterm elections to force the Democrats to take a public position before Election Day while running ads targeting them as weak in terrorism or even possible traitors.
Most Democrats in the Senate voted in favor of the resolution, which had been introduced jointly by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (DS.D.) and Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). The bombing of Iraq was a bipartisan project carried out by George HW Bush and Bill Clinton, after all, from Bush’s senior Gulf War in 1991 to Bill Clinton’s attack in 1998. Gulf 1991.
HuffPost interviewed more than a dozen US senators – some of whom were in Congress on October 11, 2002, when the vote to authorize troops against Iraq took place. Read his views on war and justice below:
Sen. Mike Rounds (RS.D.)
Was it the right decision to attack?
With all the information we have, yes. I am the new governor, I have not even been sworn in, but I have been elected. And I remember [Health and Human Services Secretary] Tommy Thompson at that time came and visited us and told us about the concerns that he had and about the biological weapons that he believed to be there. [Saddam’s] arm. At that time it is not a matter of our own will that we will lose our lives, but only how much or how big the loss of life is. It was a very sobering time. Based on the information I had at the time, I think it was the right decision…. Such a biological weapon has never been discovered, but if it were, it would be a clear war.
To this day, there are unanswered questions about intelligence assessments. I think we should judge the vote and the member’s decision by the administration to commit forces based on what the intelligence told us at the time, not what we know today.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Everyone believed at the time based on the intelligence provided there were weapons of mass destruction. That is the justification for war. It did not get rid of the terrible dictator. Obviously leaving an already struggling Iraq. But I think the real question is, if we know there are no weapons of mass destruction, will there be a war with Iraq? The answer is probably not. But I am don’t believe that those who oppose war are lying. I wasn’t here, but my recollection is based on the information I had before, he believed it was there. It’s not like Saddam Hussein was transparent and did everything to prove that he didn’t do it. They do not comply with all UN and international requirements. I definitely think it has an impact on our politics. I may use the power in the future with more skepticism and caution because of this experience. But I would imagine there are a lot of people in Iraq who are happy that Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge.
Sen. Thom Tillis (RN.C.)
I think that a lot of good has come out of that war, a lot of bad remains in terms of how unstable it is, how much of a role Iran has played there, so we certainly haven’t been able to accomplish our goals. . The situation that caused the government to decide to go there, someone preceded me, so I’m not going to be the quarterback on Monday morning.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)
In hindsight, training the next day, no it’s not the right thing to do, we all know. A lot of people died, we lost a lot of money and we were there for a long time. We can’t go in and out. We must have been made whole by the same oil that was there. Spent a lot of money, and I lost a lot of friends there, too.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
late Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
I think the benefit of hindsight is that we made a mistake because we went in and expected that we could create a liberal democracy in Iraq, and I feel the same way about Afghanistan. I think we have learned that people have to fight for their own freedom and we can not give them on a plate covered with blood.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
[The U.S. invaded Iraq to] get rid of bad people. I’m glad we did.
[Repealing the Iraq war authorization] is a good symbolism to end the war. I am disappointed that we could not end the Afghan war, which has also been going on for 15 years. [Paul is referring to his support for repealing the 2001 AUMF that continues to authorize military force in Afghanistan.]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.)
The information used to go to Iraq appears to have been incorrect. But this is what I will say: This is a very young and inefficient democracy. It was better than Saddam. The world is better off with Saddam dead, and for all the struggles with democracy in Iraq, we are better off with democracy running in Iraq. We still have soldiers there, and from the big picture, I think the world will always be better off when democracy replaces dictatorship.
I think that any attempt to argue with 20 years ago that we were justified in going into Iraq is ridiculous. meThis is one of the most disastrous non-coercive foreign policy mistakes in our country’s history or frankly another country.
This is the beginning of putting that type of ordeal on our credit cards. What do you get out of it, it looks like you are risking a lot and not getting much. Because a lot of treasure and lives were lost there… obviously you’re going to lose a lot of lives if you go underground, you’re spending a lot of money to do that.
Do everything it looks like [it’s] it will probably be difficult to measure the net gain. When you do, there should be something that can be said easily, hey, it’s better. It’s probably difficult.
I really appreciate the service men and women who stepped up. I have been going to Iraq and Kuwait for 20 years. So I really appreciate your service and I just hope that we can see some stability in the area. The Iranian threat is very real, and Iraq is an important part of it.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
I remember the Secretary [Colin] Powell called me the night before the vote and helped to persuade me in support of the authorization to use military force. He not only believes that there are weapons of mass destruction, but obviously that is greatly overstated.
Do you regret choosing to fight?
I remember, at that time we were blamed by the administration. George W. Bush and I were governors together, at the time. I think what happened was a disservice and in retrospect it’s tragic.
The war was one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes by an administration in Congress in our history. I was the lieutenant governor of Virginia when they debated the war, and I remember why they pushed this before the midterm elections … the administration decided, ‘Oh, good, we can do this and improve our chances in the midterm elections.’ I just have this feeling that there must be a better way to make decisions.
Republicans I know say Iran is becoming more powerful than ever. Saddam was a bad man, but Saddam was a check on Iran, and the vacuum he created in Iraq helped Iran and also led, like a vacuum, to the growth of groups like ISIS. I think a lot of people, if this is a secret vote now, if they can come back and have Saddam there and a less powerful Iran and ISIS that was never born, you would probably have a 100-0 vote on it.