Web Video: 2002 Authorization for Military Force in Iraq

GWEN IFILL, host: The Congress speaks on Iraq and the American public responds. President Bush wins a big one, as both the House and Senate delay, debate, then approve resolutions authorizing military force in Iraq. How did it come together?

And at the White House seeks to convince the United Nations and the American people of the need to act, who has been persuaded? What comes next?

GWEN IFILL, host: There was opposition; more than half of the Democrats in the House, nearly a quarter of the Senate. But still, the president's victory was overwhelming, the tough message he wanted sent to the United Nations Security Council, to US allies and to Saddam Hussein: 77-to-23 in the Senate, 296-to-133 in the House. The president captured the Senate by solidifying Republican support and winning over key opposition.

Senator TOM DASCHLE (Majority Leader):I will vote to give the president the authority he needs, but I respect those who reach different conclusions. For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the president unite the world.

Senator JOHN McCAIN (Republican, Arizona): There is no such thing as a Democrat or Republican war. We vote on this resolution in the same way brave young men and women in uniform will fight and die as a result of our vote, as Americans.

IFILL: In the House, the Iraq debate was no less vigorous.

Representative PETE STARK (Democrat, California): There is absolutely no evidence that any thinking person could give that says that we are in any danger from Saddam Hussein today. You're in more danger from the snipers running around in Prince George's County who we can't find.

Representative TOM DeLAY (Republican, Texas): In the wicked litany of crimes against humanity, Saddam Hussein has composed a scarlet s--chapter of terror. Our only responsible option is to confront this threat before Americans die.

IFILL: So, Juliet, how did all this end up coming together?

Ms. JULIET EILPERIN (The Washington Post): Well, really, the key moment is when--when Dick Gephardt, the House minority leader, agreed to broker a compromise with Bush where they narrowed the definition of what was going to happen to some extent, obviously, not narrowed enough for many people, but, you know, kind of restrained it so it was a little more focused on Iraq than creating stability in the region. And from that moment on, it was really clear that it was going to pass. Really, you know, what was surprising is that you had as many Democrats as you did voting against this resolution. People thought that, you know, it was going to pass with flying colors, which it did; but still the fact that you had more than half of the Democrats in the House and a sizeable chunk of--of the Democrats in the Senate voting against it shows that people still had real issues with kind of the policy implications of letting President Bush have such broad discretion when it comes to Saddam Hussein.

IFILL: Were there policy implications or rol--or pa--back-pedaling by the White House, I guess one way to describe it, that changed people's minds? Did the White House soften? It--it seemed that they softened their approach and, therefore, got more people on board.

Ms. EILPERIN: They did a bit, and--and I had Democrats say to me, for example, after Bush's speech that they thought that he had kind of downplayed the idea of pre-emption, had been a little--a little more moderate in his tone, and--and that that really, you know, brought some people over.

Mr. TOM FRIEDMAN (The New York Times): Juliet, did the Republicans who voted for this resolution feel like they were voting for war, or did they feel like they were strengthening the president's hand for diplomacy? And the--did the Democrats who voted for it feel like they were just getting a political issue off their plate so they could talk about other issues? In other words, is this really a vote for war?

Ms. EILPERIN: Well, it is to some extent, although you're--you're very right. The people modify it by different things. I mean, I would say that in terms of the Republicans, many people thought it was to support the president, although certainly people gave fairly strong speeches of--of why they feel like this is the moment to stand up to Hussein. I would say for the Democrats--I mean, they wanted to have this vote so it was over, but the fact that so many people voted against it shows that, in fact, there was a real disagreement about what's the best way to proceed. And, you know, for those who did vote for it, you know, there's a little politics mixed in; and then, again, some people who just feel like this is something that we need to address now rather than later.

IFILL: Let's break down the vote. Were there gender distinctions, geographic distinctions, political campaigning distinctions?

Ms. EILPERIN: Most importantly, there were racial distinctions. Every single Latino voter--Latino member who voted voted against this. All but, I think it was, four African-American Democrats voted against this. So that really gives you a sense of what's going on in their communities. I mean, it--really, that was stunning. And then on the political side of, you know--every Democrat in a tough race, only two of them, Jim Maloney from Connecticut and Julia Carson from Indiana, voted against it. Every other one of them voted. And with--in the Senate, you had Paul Wellstone was the only imperiled Democratic senator who voted against it, although some might argue that he would have faced political fallout if he had switched his vote over.

IFILL: A different kind of political fallout, at least in Minnesota. Well, the president has won over Congress, but he may still have a little explaining to do to the American public, at leds--least that's what Tom Friedman has discovered traveling the country to talk about his latest book, "Longitudes & Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11th."

So, Tom, for--just anecdotally: Are Americans, the folks that you see as you travel around, are they on board with this--this rush to whatever it is that we're rushing towards?

Mr. TOM FRIEDMAN (The New York Times): Th--they're not on board, Gwen. They're not also off board. I was out in Lincoln, Nebraska, and asked a Republican official while I was out there, `Tell me, what's the mood in your state.' And he really captured what I think is the mood in the country, which is ambivalent. There is not, I think, in the great sort of American middle, a huge anti-war sentiment, but there certainly isn't a huge pro-war sentiment. People--most of the people I talked to said to me, `Could you explain what this Iraq deal is all about?' I mean, I think there's deep concern about the economy, a deep concern about the stock market, and a sense like, `I--I hear the president, I know this is serious, but, God, I wish we didn't have to do this now.' OK? I would say that people distinguish between the war in Afghanistan, which had we opened the military up to volunteers then, millions of Americans would have volunteered because they understood it was a war of no choice about our survival. I think there's a perception out there that Iraq is a war of choice; it's actually a legitimate choice. But people do feel at some level there's a choice here.

IFILL: But it's the kind of ambivalence in which people can be convinced that this is a good thing or the kind of ambivalence in which it could harden into opposition?

Mr. FRIEDMAN: Exactly. And that's why I think people could be convinced, and I think what will be very determinative of that is two things, Gwen: if we get UN Security Council support and if we have more than one ally, or more than two allies, the British and the Australians. I think people are really looking for that.

Ms. JEANNE CUMMINGS (The Wall Street Journal): Did you--in your mind, do you see--how do you see Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida? And, you know, in your interviews, what are you finding?

Mr. FRIEDMAN: Well, i--it's really related to this public opinion issue, I think, in that--you know, to me, Saddam Hussein belongs to the world of what I would call deterrables. He's among those leaders out there who I would say love life more than they hate us, and for the last 10 years, we've been deterring him. What worries me, actually, and I think what worries a lot of Americans are the undeterrables, the young men from 9/11, those who hate us more than they love life. And what--what is the issue in Iraq, to me, when you get to the issue of regime change, which is actually the thing that attracts me, at least as a columnist--I'm not as interested in the WMD issue because I don't really feel threatened by that. But why is the issue of regime change important? Because what has been the engine of all these undeterrables, all these young men coming, you know, into the world angry is that they're produced by failing states. They're produced by a whole swath of states in the Arab Muslim world that are failing their young people, failing to deliver them that opportunity in the future that they want. And that is what produces the undeterrables. And so, to me, if there's one appeal in this story, it is the argument of: Can we take one state, Arab state, and actually help it become a more progressive, forward-looking, democratic society so it's no longer an engine of undeterrables?