HOW HE SEES IT How will Kerry play his vote to go to war?

By GENE HEALY
CATO INSTITUTE
John Kerry may be racking up the primary wins, but questions about his October 2002 vote for war with Iraq have dogged him throughout the race and will likely continue to vex him should he win the Democratic nomination. Kerry, of course, denies that he voted to go to war with Iraq. That denial, and the circumstances surrounding Kerry's vote, may tell us something about Kerry as a candidate. But, more important, they tell us a lot about the health of Congress as a political institution, and about the erosion of Congress' power to declare war.
At a campaign rally the Sunday before the New Hampshire primary, Kerry again felt compelled to square his opposition to the Iraq war with his vote for the use-of-force resolution that enabled it. As he put it, "The vote I cast was not a vote to go to war immediately." He said that he supported giving the president the power to wage war because he trusted President Bush to use force only as a "last resort." Bush violated that trust by not building a large enough coalition and getting the United Nations on board, "and that's why I was upset about it."
If Kerry is upset, he has only himself to blame. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said rightly at the time that the resolution Kerry voted for was a "blank check" that gave the president all the authority he needed to initiate war.
True, there is some boilerplate, bedecked with "whereases" about exhausting other options. But the operative part of the resolution reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
That language is clear: It's up to the president ["he determines"] to decide whether and when to initiate the war. Complaining about the president using the authority you've granted him is rather like locking the barn door after you've deliberately let the cows out.
Yet Kerry wasn't alone in denying that his vote was a vote to authorize war. The day after voting to authorize force, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said: "While [war] may be necessary, we're not there yet." But it is not for the president to decide whether we are "there yet." The Constitution leaves that question to Congress. As James Madison put it, "In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
Political expediency
That wisdom has increasingly given way to political expediency. Throughout the 20th century, and now, in the post-Sept. 11 era, congressional control of the war power eroded, not simply as a result of executive branch aggrandizement but also because of congressional complicity.
The imperial presidency continues to grow, largely because many legislators want to duck their responsibility to decide the question of war and peace; delegate that responsibility to the president; and reserve their right to criticize him, should military action go badly.
In an article in the current Political Science Quarterly, congressional scholar Louis Fisher compares the Iraq vote with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that empowered Lyndon Johnson to expand the Vietnam War.
"In each case," writes Fisher, "instead of acting as the people's representatives and preserving the republican form of government, they gave the president unchecked power." In each case, it was easier to punt to the president than be held accountable.
When that kind of cynical calculus reigns, it's little wonder our representatives want to rush past their most solemn responsibility, and get back to spending money to reward favored constituencies. That's how Kerry and his presidential rival, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., both saw it at the time. In the run-up to the vote, Edwards said, "In a short time Congress will have dealt with Iraq and then we'll be on to other issues." Kerry echoed: "We will have done our vote. ... You're not going to see anything happen in Iraq until December, January, February, sometime later. ... And we will go back to the real issues."
The question of war is a "real issue," if anything is. It's the gravest issue the Constitution requires Congress to decide. That prominent senators -- and presidential candidates -- squirm to avoid responsibility for it does not bode well for the future health of either branch.
XGene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.