WI: Dick Armey votes No on Iraq

Vidal

Vidal

I was rewatching The World According to Dick Cheney as research for my TL about him becoming president.

In it, I was reminded that House Republican Leader Dick Armey was very skeptical of the War in Iraq and nearly came out in full public opposition and voted no. This would've certainly given cover to weary Republicans and helped Democrats feel like they could safely vote against the war. Is it possible that if Armey had stayed a No on Iraq that the AUMF would've failed?

And if it failed, would Bush have moved forward anyway? Would the consequences of this be..?
 

Thomas Jefferson

The AUMF passed with a margin of over 100 votes IOTL, so it probably still would have passed without Armey's support, but opposition from a high profile figure within the Republican Party would have made the conflict more controversial and possibly led to a more careful consideration of intelligence before actually launching the invasion.
 
Vidal

Vidal

It would take about 80 votes in the House to flip. I think you're probably right. But it had 23 votes in opposition in the Senate. Are there 28 votes in the Senate that could be persuaded by a closer House vote (probably reasonable to say Armey brings 30 Republican votes and more or less solidifies the Dems)... The Senate was 50-50. If he more or less coalesces Dems into opposition, could they pick off enough Republicans?

But yes - I also agree there are consequences to the invasion seeming political. For Bush, of course, but also perhaps for Democrats. Maybe they get accused of playing politics w a matter of national security? (And they'd be sure to use Armey as cover....)
 

xsampa

Banned
Cheney, according to Vice (the really movie) (2018) was an iron SOB so he’d probably screw Arney into the ground
 
Admiral Jellicoe

Admiral Jellicoe

When I first read this thread title I thought you said 'Dick Emery' which took me slightly by surprise

Only British colleagues likely to pick this up.......
 

kholieken

Banned
Pesterfield said:
Then they can point out it isn't a matter of national security.
Did anyone really believe at the time Iraq was a threat to the U.S.?
Click to expand...
Yes. Americans still traumatized by 9/11. and cant tell difference between one Muslim state to other anyway.

And with yellowcake evidence, everybody would think al-Qaeda with nuke.

There are reasons why Democrats fell compelled to support it.
 
GrandMaster

GrandMaster

I doubt it would change much, but it would cause Armey to lose support among the more conservative parts of the Republican Party that wanted the war to happen.
 
Vidal

Vidal

Gillan1220 said:
It definitely would. Bush may come out stronger than OTL in which he almost lost Florida to Kerry.
Click to expand...

I actually think the opposite. A divided House GOP over Iraq probably gives Democrats the political room to come out against the war. Some Dems who were on the fence in the initial AUMF vote may go from Yea's to Nay's. This makes the vote closer than OTL and could very well accelerate the war's unpopularity if it's starting out on less solid footing.

It would not take much for Bush to lose Ohio in 2004, and less support for the war could do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top