Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Listener supported. WNYC Studios. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Hello again, everybody. This is Peter Jennings in New York. And you were looking at the scene and there are very cloudy and occasionally drizzly rainy day here in New York City.
This is intended to be in New York and in Washington today a national day of prayer and remembrance, which means of course... Just three days after 9/11, on a day when the nation was mourning the victims of those attacks, Congress passed a joint resolution of enormous gravity. In just 60 words, representatives gave to the president the power to use all necessary and appropriate force against whoever had perpetrated or aided the attack.
And not only that, he could also use military force to prevent future attacks of international terrorism. The president could now make war without having to go back to Congress, which is what the Constitution had always demanded. The resolution was called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF. And it eventually brought our country to war with Iraq and was used to deploy American forces all over the world.
The vote for AUMF in 2001 was unanimous, almost. In the entire House and the entire Senate, there was just one representative who voted no, Barbara Lee of California. What do you remember about that day? Describe the lead up to the vote and the reaction you got. I always remember standing with Elijah Cummings in the cloakroom in the back of the House chamber and
talking to Elijah, telling him how sad and how angry I was because of what had taken place, but how I knew that we had to respond appropriately. I, like everyone else in the country, were very sad and really grieving and thinking about Flight 93 because I was sitting in the Capitol and had to evacuate that morning and my chief of staff's
cousin, Wanda Green, was a flight attendant on that flight. And she, of course, as they took down that plane, which probably saved our lives, my life, she was killed. And so it was a very emotional moment for myself. But I had to... I didn't know that. I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know that. Yeah, yeah. So we were personally impacted by what had taken place. And Wanda was on that flight and I was in the capital and
You know, as history shows, Flight 93 was probably coming into the Capitol and Wanda and the flight attendants took that plane down. We had to respond appropriately, but this authorization that had been presented was only a 60-word authorization, which really was a blank check to give over congressional authority to any president to wage war. And I went to the memorial.
I remember I was the last person getting on the bus. It was a very gloomy, rainy day. The dean of the National Cathedral gave his eulogy and his sermon. He said in it, as we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore. It was at that moment I wrote that down on the program. And when we got back to the Capitol, then it was at that moment I was very settled about my no vote. Mr. Speaker, members, I rise today really with a very heavy heart.
one that is filled with sorrow for the families and the loved ones who were killed and injured this week. Only the most foolish and the most callous would not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and millions across the world. This unspeakable act on the United States has really forced me, however, to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction. September 11th changed the world.
Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. This is a very complex and complicated matter. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. Some of us must say, let's step back for a moment, let's just pause just for a minute.
and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control. Now, fast forward to Iraq, which was the next year that once again, President Bush wanted to use force embedded in that Iraq authorization was the 9-11 authorization too. So they used that as the basis to invade Iraq.
Thousands of our troops, brave men and women, were killed. Lifelong, some have lifelong injuries. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, thousands of Iraqis killed, over a trillion dollars misspent. It was a terrible, terrible moment in the history of this country. And that opened the door for ISIS and all of the other terrorist activities that we see all around the world now, including on the continent of Africa.
That's Barbara Lee talking with me about the authorization for the use of military force, the first of such measures, which took place in 2001. Congress passed another AUMF in 2002. And now, over 20 years later, officials in both houses are pushing to repeal it. The mood in the country has changed tremendously. And yet the timing here is worth looking at closely.
A bill in the Senate to revoke AUMF passed 66 to 30 a few weeks ago, and that effort was led by Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, and Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana. I spoke with them both last week. Senator Kaine, it's probably worth remembering that in 2001, Barbara Lee said, I don't think the president should have the authority to wage war. And for many members of Congress...
And in the commentariat, I should also say, that put her patriotism in question. What does it say that that is no longer the case? You know, look, if you can't learn some lessons after 20 years of war, shame on you. You know, I think that the 20 years of the war on terror and the war in Iraq...
the repeated deployments. You know, when have we had a war where people deployed six or seven times? That wasn't in World War II. You know, that wasn't in Korea. Vietnam, there were multiple deployments. We're not in six or seven deployments. You do six or seven deployments. What's your test case for what that means in the afterlife of somebody who's served? What does that mean for the VA? What does that mean for divorce rates? What does it mean
for a million things. And so I think the, I think we, we have learned some lessons. Let's also give Iraq credit. I mean, Iraq was an enemy. We toppled that government. And,
We then departed Iraq, I think, in 2011, but then they asked us back in 2014 to help them defeat ISIS. And we are there at their continued invitation, both to deal with ISIS and also to help them check Iranian aggression. We've beaten the sword into a plowshare. A nation that was an enemy is now a partner.
And we have to give credit to the magnanimity of Iraqis as well for wanting the U.S. to be their partner. Well, with a great, great deal of bloodshed in between. Absolutely. Look, the bloodshed – but there is this thing in our history where the bloodshed of World War II, Japan and Germany are strong allies. Now, the bloodshed of the Vietnam War, Vietnam is getting closer and closer in our relationship. And if we send a message in like repealing the Iraq AOMF, this nation that was an enemy –
We're now strategic partners. And anybody who's an enemy of the United States can look at that and say, hmm, the U.S. doesn't have permanent enemies. The U.S. is always going to try to figure out a way to turn, you know, an enemy into a partner. And it's hard and it takes time and may or may not happen. But I think that's an important part of this. Senator, you don't see that as a fairly sunny reading of the Iraq War?
Well, look, I do. It's a reality. There's 4,500 American troops were killed. Tens of thousands of Americans were injured. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed. That's what haunts me about this. We did – 2002, the decision was made in three days, and it was rushed, and look what happened. Look at the human consequence of that.
And yet that's all a reality and I'm haunted by it, that if the time had been taken, we might have avoided that and avoided a lot of other challenges. And yet at the same time, I do think you have to acknowledge that the U.S. is working and Iraq is working to make a relationship that is a positive one.
And in that positive relationship, maintaining a war authorization against Iraq is offensive, frankly insulting. And dangerous, right? I mean, these are authorizations still on the book.
that could conceivably be used by a future commander-in-chief to re-engage us in various areas around the world. So we just can't allow that to stand. Senator Young, was there a road to Damascus moment for you on this? What changed between 9-11 and 2023 that made you feel that now there's a turning point and the AUMF second one?
had outlived its use? For me, you know, this really began when I served in the military. I attended the U.S. Naval Academy and spent five years in the U.S. Marine Corps. And though many smart people serve at the highest ranks in our military, you do get some insight into your leadership and recognize that they are fallible like anyone else.
And so that was part of it that shaped my perspective as I followed issues like engagement in the Iraq war. Then over a period of time, it became clear to me that, as Tim indicated, that this was a conflict we rushed into ill-advisedly. And I don't want to be...
I want to be critical, but not too critical of members who served during that time and who authorized the force in the wake of 9-11 and all the rest. But it was pretty clear to me and frankly, clear to my constituents, clear to my neighbors that
We had we'd made a mistake and it cost so many lives. It cost us treasure. And we just can't afford, especially in an era of strategic change.
competition with China. We can't afford to make another mistake like this. And the American people need to be able to hold accountable those of us who are charged on their behalf with making these decisions. So it was a gradual process for me. Now, Senator Young, you've both emphasized the bipartisan nature of this bill, but most of your Republican colleagues in the Senate
are not necessarily with you. There are 49 Republicans in the Senate. 30 of them voted no and want to preserve the AUMF, as we were discussing.
Even if you disagree with them, what's the sticking point for them? What are the politics within the Republican caucus and what do you expect to see going forward? So almost without exception, the stated objectives from some of my colleagues, and it's a principled objection, is that this could, by repealing the O2 Iraq Authority, somehow create an impression that the United States is withdrawing from the region.
As Tim and I... From the Middle East. From the Middle East, from Iraq in particular. And as we have repeatedly reminded our colleagues...
Iran right now is engaged in misinformation campaigns against the sitting Iraqi government, which was just formed in January. We think and we believe, and this belief is shared by the sitting Iraqi government, that by repealing the 2002 AUMF, we send a message of solidarity,
with the people of Iraq and their government. And this demonstrates strength so that we can work together against threats to their peace and security posed by Iran and others.
Senator Kaine, we're now in a moment when there is a ground war taking place in Europe, the biggest ground war since the Second World War. Right, yeah. And unless I'm wrong, it seems to me that the politics of that war in Congress are in question, that the longer this war goes on, there's concern, certainly in Kiev...
that congressional support for that war will recede, that there will be an exhaustion among the American people, that the 2024 election will bring Ukraine into the debate. You've seen, for example, Governor DeSantis going back and forth, trying to find some sort of firm ground for himself on the war in Ukraine.
How much does the politics of Ukraine have to do with what's going on now with AUMF, and how might it influence the future? I still believe that as a member of both armed services and foreign relations in the Senate, that there is a strong bipartisan and bicameral support in Congress for investing and supporting Ukraine until they win this very, very important battle, you know, started without...
provocation. I think that the bipartisan support for Ukraine is very strong. I agree. There's two kinds of objection. It's strong, not unanimous. So there are folks here who, some for reasons of, you know, fiscal reasons and some because they don't view this
Ukraine necessarily is a core interest of the U.S. There's a small group of people who are not completely supportive. And then there's a second group that are raising legitimate questions. Are we investing the right way? Are we overseeing how the money is used to make sure it's really going to do what's intended? And all those questions are legitimate. I mean, we have to ask those questions. But I do think that it is still bipartisan, bicameral, strong support, and that's going to last
through the election cycle and beyond. The consequences of Russia being able to do this without consequence are just too grave around the world. And I don't, it was interesting as we were having the floor debate about the repeal of O2AUMF, we had the bill on the floor for two weeks. It was, you know, four times longer than the declaration of war against Iraq. We had a lot of amendments.
And there was opportunity for people to offer amendments dealing with Ukraine, but folks didn't. They offered amendments about Iran or Iran-backed militias. But the members of the Senate kind of kept Ukraine separate from this, and they understood that it is separate. And I think you're going to see the same thing on the House side.
probably on the House side as they take up our AUMF repeal. There's a good bipartisan group of supporters there. There will probably be some discussions about Iran-related issues, but I don't think the Ukraine politics is going to kind of get into this and, you know, knock it sideways. Senator Young, a final question, and it is striking the sense of bipartisanship, not only between the two of you, but in large measure in the Senate. But if Donald Trump were president now,
What would the Republican support for this be? How deep does this bipartisanship go? You know, I think most of those in the Senate who supported the 2002 repeal would continue to support its repeal. Let's remember that President Trump campaigned on trying to end the forever wars.
And, you know, I will say whatever one thinks of his presidency and his record, we did not become embroiled in military conflicts abroad. So this is consistent with the spirit of President Trump's stated foreign policy. But more importantly, it has broad based support around the country. So I don't think the votes would change markedly.
Senator Todd Young, Senator Tim Kaine, thank you both very much. Thank you. Thanks, David. That was Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana. Earlier, we heard from Representative Barbara Lee of California, a Democrat. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. More to come.
I'm Maria Konnikova. And I'm Nate Silver. And our new podcast, Risky Business, is a show about making better decisions. We're both journalists whom we light as poker players, and that's the lens we're going to use to approach this entire show. We're going to be discussing everything from high-stakes poker to personal questions. Like whether I should call a plumber or fix my shower myself. And of course, we'll be talking about the election, too. Listen to Risky Business wherever you get your podcasts.
I want to close on a personal note today about a recent loss that all of us at The New Yorker feel deeply. The cartoonist Ed Koren first started publishing in the magazine in 1962. That's before the Beatles showed up at Shea Stadium. And in his long tenure, first in New York, then in Vermont,
Koren evolved into a defining voice of the magazine, what we all would hope to be: humane, progressive, funny, decent. His status-anxious subjects, whether they were portrayed as jittery human beings or woolly Koren creatures, were always struggling with a way to live in the world, a world that's filled with doubt, strangeness, and absurdity. There are countless ways an artist or a satirist can approach the madness.
Ed's sensibility, his way of being in the world, was to heighten the decency within him. And he brought it out in his readers, too. The cartoon editor Emma Allen, as well as writers like Mark Singer and Calvin Trillin, were in frequent touch with Ed to the end. They all knew he was sick. Ed made no pretense about it. And yet, even as his voice weakened, you left those conversations filled with a sense not only of a life well-lived, but of someone radiating a sense of hope.
The quote that I come back to often, the secret source, Mark Twain, the secret source of humor is sorrow. And I think that encapsulates it for me beautifully. Not so long ago, Ed spoke with Christopher Lydon of Radio Open Source at his home in Vermont. And he talked about his work for many years on the volunteer fire department in the town of Brookfield.
Well, that was one way of reaching out and getting to know what this town is like and where this huge social disparity exists.
but which disappears when we have a common task. And it's kind of symbolic in a way because we all, we don't talk politics mercifully. We don't talk about anything other than the fire, the incident, or a wreck, which is oftentimes the case. People from other places speeding to the slopes through our patch of the woods here. So it's very...
It illuminates me and my life as much as anything else. Does it feed your cartoons? Well, to a degree in that I see the huge social gulfs between people and how they live. Because one of the things you do
As a member of the fire department, you interact with all kinds of people in all kinds of situations, all kinds of homes, kinds of ways of life, all kinds of reactions. There's gratitude, there's bother, there's irritation. There's all sorts of human behavior that I use in ways that I can't take. Picture that, interacting with my love of, say,
Tintoretto or of Carpaccio, Vittoria Carpaccio. It's a wonderful, wonderful artist. Picture that with my love of George Herriman and Crazy Cat. And picture that with my love with Daumier and on and on. The late and wonderful Ed Corrin. You can hear a longer version of that conversation at radioopensource.org.
I'm David Remnick. Thanks for listening to the program today. I hope you'll join us next time. Well, here's one that I think is really germane to our situation. This one. A woman scrubbing a toilet, and there's a kind of visual setup, a little camera on a tripod. And she's pleased as punch with joy. And she's saying to her husband,
husband and small daughter. I've just started scrubbing the toilet and I already have 27,000 views. The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbess of Tune Yards with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Fulton, Brita Green,
The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherena Endowment Fund.
