<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" I have noticed a certain line of argument popping up on the port side of things regarding the new Secretary Of State, John Kerry, and the Secretary-designate of Defense, Chuck Hagel, as regards their unfortunate votes in favor of what (admittedly inevitably) became the Iraq War. (In Kerry&amp;#039;s case, this line of argument popped up repeatedly in another historical context. This was called 2004.) In retrospect, the votes are indefensible. Not as indefensible as the howlingly mendacious case for war itself, or as indefensible as St. Colin Powell&amp;#039;s farrago of what he knew was &amp;quot;bullshit&amp;quot; in front of the U.N. But it is undeniable that Hagel and Kerry should have known as much as, say, the Washington bureau of the McClatchy News Service knew. That said, both men turned against the war itself when it became plain that the country had been lied to. Both were resolutely outspoken \u2014 in Hagel&amp;#039;s case, against an administration of his own party \u2014 in their opposition. I mention this, not simply because Kerry was confirmed by the Senate yesterday and Hagel&amp;#039;s nomination hits the road today, but to ask the question \u2014 how long should a vote for that misbegotten investment of Other People&amp;#039;s Children remain the mark of Cain? Hell, the people who planned it, fashioned the lives, stovepiped the intelligence, and invested Other People&amp;#039;s Children are still respected policy thinkers. (Shouldn&amp;#039;t the entire Kagan family be running a Gas &amp;#039;n Sip outside Needles at this point?) They still have their drum majorettes writing in major newspapers. How much more of a penalty should the people who voted for the war pay than that paid by the people who designed it? As an answer, I went back to a story from three years ago in The New York Times about some declassified documents regarding different lies that helped launch a different war, Some of the dialogue is intriguing. &amp;quot;In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them...In the end, however, the senators did not further pursue their doubts...if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, &amp;quot;we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.&amp;quot; That was Senator Frank Church.  &amp;quot;We are just a useless appendix on the governmental structure.&amp;quot; That was Senator J. William Fulbright. Both of those men eventually voted in August of 1964 for the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution, which is what is under discussion in these transcripts. (Why transcripts of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should have been classified at all for almost 50 years is another question entirely.) During the debate on the resolution on the floor of the Senate, Fulbright elaborated: As I stated, section I is intended to deal primarily with aggression against our forces.... I do not know what the limits are. I do not think this resolution can be determinative of that fact. I think it would indicate that he [the President] would take reasonable means first to prevent any further aggression, or repel further aggression against our own forces... I would ask the people who are lined up against Kerry and Hagel because they voted for the resolution that produced the Iraq war, should Fulbright&amp;#039;s shepherding the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution through the Senate have disqualified him in 1966 from leading the first serious congressional investigation into what in the unholy hell had resulted from it in Southeast Asia? Did Church&amp;#039;s vote on the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution devalue the work his committee did in exposing the crimes of the CIA eleven years later?Were the only senators with sufficient credibility to challenge the war in 1972 Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse, since George McGovern also had voted for the resolution out of which sprang the war? How long a penance is long enough? This is not likely to come up when Hagel testifies today. Official Washington has decided that the whole unfortunate episode concerning how we went to war in Iraq for a decade is better off left alone. But, I am fairly confident, that, if he is asked about it, Hagel&amp;#039;s answer would be an honest one. Ten years later, sadly, that may be all we can hope for, "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a17314/the-echoes-of-iraq/>