VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Why did a majority of Democratic senators vote to authorize a war with Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002? And why is this war now supposedly President Bush’s misfortune and not theirs?

The original fear of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, of course, played a role in their votes —but only a role. In the 23 writs that authorized force to remove Saddam Hussein, senators at the time also cited Iraq’s sanctuary and subsidies for terrorists. Then there were Saddam’s attempts to assassinate a former United States president; his repression of, and use of weapons of mass destruction against, his own people; and his serial violations of both United Nations and 1991 Persian Gulf War agreements. If paranoia over weapons of mass destruction later proved just that, these other reasons to remove Saddam remain unassailable.

Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid summed up best the feeling of Democrats that there were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam in a post-9/11 climate. He reminded his colleagues that Saddam’s refusal to honor past agreements "constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

But it was not just fear of Saddam alone that prompted Democrats to authorize the use of force to remove him. There was the more-general, liberal notion of using American arms to stop violent dictators. While the Democratic Party has a strong pacifist wing, its mainstream has always advocated a global promotion of American liberal values — sometimes through the use of pre-emptory force. [more]