The US Congress House of Representatives passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution unanimously, 416-0. However in the Senate, the resolution was opposed by two of the 50 Senators, who spoke against it during debates:
Senator Gaylord Nelson:
Am I to understand that it is the sense of Congress that we are saying to the executive branch: “If it becomes necessary to prevent further aggression, we agree now, in advance, that you may land as many divisions as deemed necessary, and engage in a direct military assault on North Vietnam, if it becomes the judgment of … the Commander in Chief that this is the only way to prevent further aggression”?William Fulbright:
As I stated, Section 1 is intended to deal primarily with aggression against our forces…. I do not know what the limits are. I do not think this resolution can be determinative of that fact. I think it would indicate that [the President] would take reasonable means first to prevent any further aggression, or repel further aggression against our own forces… I do not know how to answer the Senator’s question and give him an absolute assurance that large numbers of troops would not be put ashore. I would deplore it…Nelson:
My concern is that we in Congress could give the impression to the public that we are prepared at this time to change our mission and substantially expand our commitment. If that is what the sense of Congress is, I am opposed to the resolution. I therefore ask the distinguished Senator from Arkansas if he would consent to accept an amendment [that determines Congress wants no extension of the present military conflict and no U.S. direct military involvement].Fulbright:
The Senator has put into his amendment a statement of policy that is unobjectionable. However, I cannot accept the amendment under the circumstances. I do not believe it is contrary to the joint resolution, but it is an enlargement. I am informed that the House is now voting on this resolution. The House joint resolution is about to be presented to us. I cannot accept the amendment and go to conference with it, and thus take responsibility for delaying matters.Senator Ernest Gruening:
Regrettably, I find myself in disagreement with the President’s Southeast Asian policy… The serious events of the past few days, the attack by North Vietnamese vessels on American warships and our reprisal, strikes me as the inevitable and foreseeable concomitant and consequence of U.S. unilateral military aggressive policy in Southeast Asia… We now are about to authorise the President, if he sees fit, to move our armed forces not only into South Vietnam, but also into North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand… That means sending our American boys into combat in a war in which we have no business, which is not our war, into which we have been misguidedly drawn, which is steadily being escalated. This resolution is a further authorisation for escalation unlimited. I am opposed to sacrificing a single American boy in this venture. We have lost far too many already…Senator Wayne Morse:
I believe that history will record that we have made a great mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States… I believe this resolution to be a historic mistake. I believe that within the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.