There are only 3 reasons to have voted for the IWR. They are all contemptible

[cali]

1) You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to go to war.

2) For whatever reasons, you wanted a war with Iraq.

3) Political expediency. You thought voting yes would be better for your political career.

[Scuba]

1. This isn't right.

I can only rec this OP once!

[Bubzer]

141. I rec'ed it again for ya!

[MrMickeysMom]

155. For every Democrat who voted, see #3...

… And then tell me if they didn't understand the consequences of what their vote truly meant.

There's an old saying that I'm not matching word for word, but it's true….

I'd rather deal with true ignorance, then deal with deceptive knowledge

I remember like it was yesterday. All the Democrats were making their speeches on the Iraq war, and Hillary Clinton made hers…

I knew then that I could not trust such a deception thereafter. A lot of people here will think this is an attack against HRC specifically, but they are wrong. I was absolutely heart broken that the person PRIOR to giving that speech was going to be my pick to the WH after the Bushes. She went deceptive with that vote "cast with conviction".

I am not that naive and certainly far less naive after that speech.

[Scuba]

156. "I knew then that I could not trust such a deception thereafter."

Yep.

[mylye2222]

2. K n R

Most of Dems did it for Number 3 reason.

[840high]

101. Yep

[daleanime]

116. +1

[LWolf]

3. I thought so at the time.

I think so now.

[Autumn]

4. # 3 all the way around.

Rec

[Uncle Joe]

134. Al Gore warned against it and this USA Today article supports your contention.

SAN FRANCISCO — Former vice president Al Gore on Monday outlined a sweeping indictment of President Bush's threatened attack on Iraq, calling it a distraction from the war on terrorism that has "squandered" international support for the United States.

Gore, who lost the 2000 election to Bush, took a tougher stance toward the White House on Iraq than other leading Democrats, who have been leery of challenging the president. Congress is expected to vote in short order on a resolution authorizing action.

(snip)

"The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized," Gore said. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted."

(snip)

Indeed, Gore's words could be a rallying cry for those who oppose Bush on Iraq, complicating the move for fast action in Congress. Not all Democrats would be pleased by that. Some of them, especially those running for re-election in November, want to turn the topic back to economic and other domestic issues as soon as possible.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-23-gore_x.htm

[Andy823]

5. So

Which one was Kerry in? Or for that matter Bidden? Everybody knows Clinton voted for the war, hell we see it posted day after day after day. Did you vote for Kerry?

[1monster]

7. In the primaries? NO. In the general, yes, because

there was no way I was going to vote for more of the same.

[Scuba]

8. I voted for Kerry, and I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if she's the Democratic candidate.

Still doesn't excuse her vote, just shows how poor our choices have been.

[ctsnowman]

10. This ^^^^

[mylye2222]

11. Kerry did spoke against Iraq invasion before that vote.

He voted for it only in the conditions of WMD should be found by UN inspectors. All his other votes related to that issues were , against the further war fundings. He also stated several times about how it was a mistake.

[roguevalley]

15. oh god. even I here in the boondocks knew what this was. how can ANYONE get a pass or be

excused when they were sitting there with facts. Kerry gets nothing from me. He talked with the others and knew more than I did. He voted for the war because he was ambitious, wanted the presidency and had to do it to preserve that. That makes him worse because of it. Apologies after the fuck up exploded and everyone hates it aren't bravery. they are more cowardice.

[mylye2222]

17. Edwards also voted for it.

Howewer he didnt, after the loss ( election stolen), faced the backclash Kerry had. And neither Hillary did after she lost 2008 primary to President Obama.

Ah, that damn "popularity" factor. ....

[roguevalley]

52. they all deserve backlash. All of them.

[cali]

21. no pass. no excuse

That's just bullshit

[dsc]

45. that is exactly what Clinton did

but since Kerry has a penis that must be what makes it OK because otherwise they did the same damn thing.

[mylye2222]

49. Do you know that people who like Kerry also like

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as well and would have wished Elizabeth has run for 2016? She is a woman also, no?

Do you know that she did stand by her IW vote even after 2008?

All (luckily a) part of Clinton supporters' )memes holds only in three or four simple words:

"RW TALkING POINTS"
" SEXISTS"
And now the last : " BERNIE=RACIST".

Who started rumors about Obama being a secret muslim back in 2008? CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

And yes it was the RW wich launched the "birth certificate".

[dsc]

62. from where I stand if you have a bunch of people who all did x

and all but one of them is considered hunky dory while the one is considered Hitler in a dress and the only difference is that all the hunky dory people have peni and Hitler in a dress doesn't, then it seems the lack of a penis is what the problem was. The fact you like Warren only says that the problem isn't completely insurmountable. It is like when Republicans vote for Ben Carson and say they aren't racist because they voted for Ben Carson.

[mylye2222]

71. Keep on false raccourcis.

" Either your with us, or you are against us".

Dismissing the ones who dont reverence towards the Party chosen ones.

[Armstead]

93. I think the only body parts and fluids on the minds of critics of the Iraq War were....

the excessive testisterone and balls of Bush and Dick.

[JDPriestly]

73. Do I understand your post to say that Elizabeth Warrren voted on the IWR?

She wasn't in Congress yet.

I hope I misunderstood your post.

Please clarify it.

Who is the she in "Do you know that she did stand by her IW vote even after 2008?"

Are you referring to Warren or Hillary?

[mylye2222]

74. I was reffering to the accusations of sexism.

I know many ladies who are now with Bernie who prior whoshed Liz to run.
I agree I went OT, sorry.

[marble falls]

147. So this is about "genitals". Thanks for clearing that up.

[dsc]

149. I'm not the one who literally said

that when Kerry did something it was hunky dory but when Clinton did the same, precise, exact thing it was a problem.

[mylye2222]

151. The real problem is that although JK inititally

Voted yes to IWR , then he voted again the bilion dollars of war funding. He also after 2004 led an effirt to set a deadline of troops retreats, and expressed numerpus times regrets ablut initial vote.

HRC stood by her IWR vote until 2008, and eveb after. Plus during 2004- 2008 she bacjed the horrendous Bu$s nominations such as Condiliar. Not Kerry.

So I am talking about ACTIONS? Yoi do know what that word means, right?

But YOU are judging people by their level on the popularity scale. And doing so you use false pretextes and memes such as "sexism" to justify your POW.

[dsc]

152. the fact is Kerry voted for it

and he also voted for the funding (he had voted against the funding once but then voted for it later). He did exactly what she did. You can try to say otherwise but the only difference in their actions is that he has a penis and she doesn't. It is one thing to compare her actions to Bernie or Obama and say they are different but she and Biden and Kerry all did the same thing. No amount of dishonest spin by you changes those facts.

[mylye2222]

153. You. Are. Ridiculous.

What about the "botched joke" smear whom Hillary and other Centrist Dems joined?
What about Hillary's vote YES for Condiliar nomination as well as Alito' s?
THAT. ARE .ACTIONS. CITINGS NOT SEXISM.

Faut que je parle français pour que tu comprennes peut être?
D' accord.

Tes accusations de sexisme ne tiennent pas la routé car:
J'aurais souhaite que Élizabeth Warren se presente aussi.
En France j'ai voté pour Eva Joly la dernière fois car c'était la candidature la plus intègre au premier tour. Ensuite Hillary pour faire barrage à Sarko, la version française de Bush
I appreciate , supports and when I can vote for a politician, primaroly bevause of issues and integrity. If its a woman it is great. If its a guy it is nice as well.

To finish: your "sexism" smear of me is as ridicule as Team Hillary labelling Bernke as a racist.

[bvar22]

124. Isn't that just like John Kerry.

He argues both sides of the question,
then lists all the bad stuff that can happen....
and votes for it anyway.

[arikara]

138. John Kerry

is skull and bones, the same boys club as the chimp. Those guys stick up for each other first and foremost.

[Andy823]

13. I agree with you

However day after day after day of being reminded of her vote gets old fast. EVERYBODY knows how she voted, by bring it up a million times?

I have this problem with the constant bashing of Clinton day in and day out. I don't plan on voting for her in the primary either, but I also think that people here have taken this hate, or dislike, whatever you want to call it, to far. It's not helping Bernie gain supporters. Supporters should take after their candidate. Bernie is not trashing Hillary day in and day out, so why should his supporters?

I decided to support O'Malley because of all the groups here on DU the O'Malley group was the only one not bashing any of the other candidates. I like Bernie, I like his ideas, but no matter what some here may say, the way a candidates supporters act, really does make a difference in picking someone to support.

[Scuba]

16. I have no problem with DU members (or others) pointing out the flaws in our candidates.

It's primary season, time to vet and select our best option. Not reporting on Clintons many, many flaws would be both a mistake and a neglect of our responsibilities as citizens.

[Andy823]

23. It's gone far beyond pointing out flaws

It's like an obsession with many here, just like attacking president Obama on daily bases. People are obsessed with trying to outdo the other attackers with their BS. Hell today Benghazi was actually brought into the bashing. I mean come one it's like fox news talking points day in and day out!

[Scuba]

26. She's the frontrunner. If she can't stand the heat she's welcome to get out of the kitchen.

[Andy823]

77. What has that got to do with

The constant posting of the same crap day after day? Do you really think that there might be somebody here on DU that doesn't know about her war vote? Or here email problem?

It's an obsession, a very unhealthy obsession if you ask me.

[Scuba]

92. It's a discussion board. People enjoy discussing politics, including things that have been ...

... discussed previously. If you don't like that, ignore the thread.

[PowerToThePeople]

22. I also tire of the daily red scare McCarthyism on DU.

But, I suspect that will not end either.

[Andy823]

25. Really?

Do you have some links to that?

[PowerToThePeople]

29. lol.

You can not be serious.


edit - here is a small sampling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=554790

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251428657

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141126755

[BeanMusical]

38. +1

[jtuck004]

51. + another 1 Thank you for the links n/t

[Doctor_J]

136. And...that's why I won't be voting for Mrs. Clinton

Not only is she a Republican at heart, her supportrs are no better than Fox Nation residents

[MsMAC]

66. Thanks you Andy and amen! Not a Clinton fan

(not a Bernie fan either) but I'm sick to death of the constant Clinton bashing and reminding us how she voted for the IWR!

[SMC22307]

99. Ignore user. Keyword hide. Trash thread. Skinner & Crew have provided us...

with some nifty tools. Use them. Or complain. Whatever.

[bvar22]

157. Bring it up a million times?

Why, YES.
That would be once for every innocent Iraqi whose blood is on her hands.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. You got that right...I think Hillary was wrong to vote for the IWR on all three counts. No excuse for it.

[sabrina 1]

105. I don't think you're going to have to hold your nose this time. The people will decide this time

who gets the nomination. We are already half way there and it's been less than four months.

I don't think they KNOW how ANGRY the people are and have been. And that NO, they did not forget those votes, the awful judgement that was displayed by so many who were entrusted to represent the best interests of the people who elected them.

Fortunately we have a great choice this time and enough people who are no longer fooled the way they once were.

[Scuba]

110. I hope you're correct, but the way the DNC has rigged the systems troubles me greatly.

[sabrina 1]

111. True, but this time, look how much flack they are getting. Remember when Kucinich was running

and his participation in the debates raised the level of discourse and he was getting a lot of support. Then the media stopped covering him, he was eliminated from the debates. But the reaction was nothing like it is re DWS obvious attempt to protect Hillary.

Because we are no longer in the 'anyone but Bush mode'. That was such a long time ago and people have seen how all that worked out, going against their better instincts, falling for the 'but if your candidate DOES win the nomination, he CAN'T win the GE. And we lost anyhow.

There is a whole different mindset today. We KNOW Bernie can defeat the Republicans. And we know we are no longer susceptible to those old tactics.

So imo, Bernie has as much of a chance of winning as Hillary does, more actually once people learn who he is and what he and always has been about.

[Scuba]

112. I think Bernie has a better chance of winning the GE than Hillary. And it's my opinion that ...

... if Hillary wins the GE we are no better off than we are today, likely worse.

[truebluegreen]

126. I agree, on both counts. nt

[Bubzer]

142. +1

[TwilightGardener]

9. They were all in #3. Wanted to look hawkish to combat the Dem weak-on-defense rap for their

upcoming Prez runs. I'll bet a bazillion bucks they thought it would go like Gulf War 1, relatively quick and casualty-free glory, and they wanted to be on the right side of history, judgment-wise. At the time, we were mopping up the Taliban pretty well in Afghanistan, I'm sure that gave them confidence that Iraq could be a success.

[cali]

20. yes, or voted for Kerry and I'll vote for clinton

if she's the nominee

[Armstead]

33. The day befor the vote I called Kennedy and Kerry's offices

They were my senators, and I wanted to register my own request to vote no.

Kennedy's staffer said "Thank you. The senator has already decided to vote no."

Kerry's staffer said "The senator is still considering the issues, which he is very complicated and he believes it requires full deliberation."

Next day Kerry voted yes with a long-winded and shameless speech attempting to justify his "for but against" waffling.

Kennedy had it right. I like Kerry, but I had a very hard time forgiving that demonstration of opportunism and lack of courage.

[Martin Eden]

68. No and Yes

No, in a Democratic primary I will NEVER support a candidate who voted for the IWR.
Yes, I travelled to Ohio in November 2004 to help GOTV for Kerry because GW Bush had to be stopped.

I answered your question, and now I have a question for you:
Which of the 3 explanations for the vote do you find acceptable, or do you have an alternative explanation?

[Hoyt]

6. Obviously wrong now, but some thought it would strengthen Prez's hand & would not lead to invasion.

Once it was clear most in Congress were going to give Pres authority, SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY, it was easy to vote No.

[wiggs]

18. Important point. And many at the time who voted yes said as much. nt

[cali]

24. obviously wrong then

And many of their peers spoke eloquently to that

[Armstead]

35. A No vote was not the "easy way out."

[SonderWoman]

12. No one voted on war, as a matter of fact, they all stated opposition to war.

Congress hasn't voted on war since 1945. They voted for inspectors.

[cali]

27. utter bullshit

As Patrick Leahy said over and over again it was a blank check

[George II]

107. Now one of the qualifications to be elected to Congress is being clairvoyant?

[Hissyspit]

130. Funny. I knew not to vote for it.

I have no extra-sensory powers at all.

[Old Crow]

34. This one short post of yours contains 4 errors of fact...

... which is why, I suspect, no one else is even bothering with it.

I could address them, but if you spend 2 minutes Googling, I think you can identify them yourself.

[George II]

109. Meaning there probably isn't even a single error of fact.

[Fumesucker]

146. Eh, suspect that poster is a deep Sandersnista mole

Along with a few of the other more extreme Hillarians.

Trying to make the opponents supporters all look like idiots by posing as such is not particularly uncommon, there's a couple doing it the other way too IMO..

It's wise to keep Poe's law in mind at all times, I can do a pretty good imitation of a right wing nut too but I'm too lazy/have better things to do to put in that kind of effort.

[whopis01]

37. Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq .

That was the first line of the resolution.

Anyone claiming that they were voting for inspectors and not voting for the use of military force is either incapable of understanding written language or is lying.

[cali]

39. +1.

[Armstead]

48. I'm against war But I'm going to give George Bush, GEORGE BUSH, my blessing to wage it

I'll trust Dick Cheney and GWB. They have such great judgement.

[sibelian]

98. It is my sad duty to inform you that you are suffering from contrarianism.

It is a common complaint among people with little to lose.

Are you such a person?

[mike_c]

117. the name of the bill was Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002....

Have you ever read it? It is short and to the point. After a few paragraphs of mostly false whereases, it gets right to the point and gives the president full authority to invade Iraq. If anyone voted for that without knowing what they were authorizing, then they fall so completely within Cali's reason #1 that they have no business in congress.

[roguevalley]

14. cali scores again

It doesn't matter what they 'voted' for. they didn't stop it. they knew what they were doing, all of them including Kerry.

[SHRED]

19. I always found it strange

That many of us knew before going in it would create this mess and giving W authority would be a green light yet people like HRC didn't?

It doesn't pass the smell test.

[BeanMusical]

41. It was known that it would create this mess since the 1st Gulf War

This asshole knew it too:

In this interview from April 15th, 1994 Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime wouldn't be a great idea. He also stipulates that "not very many" American soldiers' lives were worth losing to take out Saddam during the Gulf War.

[hibbing]

42. Yes

I saw so many posts day after day here about what disaster this would be. And this whole, "faulty intelligence" stuff was all bullshit too. They knew exactly what they were voting for.

Peace

[SoapBox]

28. Total K & R

[oasis]

30. Misrepresentation is also contemptible. <nt>

[cali]

40. if you think I'm misrepresenting something, exactly what is it?

[seabeyond]

60. i agree. a whole lot of history and discussion left out. this is one i do not even bother with on

du though. one would have to have an open mind in discussion and that is not gonna happen. i do not even waste my time

but i agree with you. a whole lot of history and the happening totally ignored on a pretty big issue.

[Hissyspit]

128. We needed leadership on that vote. We didn't get it. I was disgusted and furious at everyone who

voted for it.

There is no defending it.

[seabeyond]

129. i understand. though i disagree. what would have been in losing the senate and house seats.

meh. no big deal in the time of bushco heated mess.

i disagree there is no argument here, not with objecting to the vote.

[Hissyspit]

127. Sorry. I was disgusted and furious when this happened. At everyone.

There was no excuse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

Hillary and the others voted for the killing because it was "smart", "pragmatic", politics.

Hillary "evolved" only after doing so was "smart", "pragmatic", politics to do so.

[BeanMusical]

44. +1000

[Depaysement]

50. Close

She knew she would run for President eventually and she thought she could not win if she voted no.

[Hydra]

32. A solid hit Cali

And only weak defenses presented for it.

And for those who think it shouldn't matter now, Bush may not have gotten that blank check without Hillary's solid support and stumping- many Dems were against the IWR until she pushed for it near the end. She won the hearts and minds they needed by using her political capital to support Bushco.

Just like she will in the WH.

[hifiguy]

58. If HRH becomes POTUS, there will be

another war w/in 18 months. I'd bet something substantial on it.

[PatrickforO]

36. If I had to assign a reason for Clinton's vote, I'd go with number 3, and quite possibly number 2

Number 1 is out of the question because she's certainly not stupid. Though you can make a pretty compelling case for lacking in judgment.

[Lancero]

43. As someone here explained it a while back...

Most D's who voted for the war did so for reason 3 - Apparently 4500 lives and countless thousands of injuries (Haven't found specific numbers of injuries, just ~1 million between the two) is more then worth the political capital, and well think of how much capital they would have lost if Iraq had WMDS like the Republicans said they did?

Ah yeah, here it is - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=529987

Apparently the entire situation was taters and gravy?

[BeanMusical]

46. Kick and R

[cantbeserious]

47. Number 3 Applies To Some Well Known Politicians

eom

[RufusTFirefly]

56. Yes. They feared the war would go quickly and that their "no" votes would be used against them

In other words, they were willing to gamble the lives of Americans and Iraqis for the sake of their own political futures.

[hifiguy]

61. The very definition of self-serving

craven swinishness.

[hifiguy]

53. Translation:

They were

1. Stupid
2. Nuts, or
3. Gutless/craven

[HereSince1628]

54. Your number 2 is actually 'whatever-many' reasons.

The math that sums this to 3 clearly much depends upon "many reasons" being seen as a 'set'.

Is this something that came from the modern math of the 60's?

Two other reasons come to mind...

the "Greater Israel" movement that had cycled up out of the 90's, and the desire of Saudia Arabia to be the controlling power in the region.

The US becoming a proxy for SA has been pretty terrible.

[seabeyond]

55. you are wrong. there are other reasons, but then one would have to not have agenda and an ability

to see nuance.

i am not getting into this. i sat in tight with that period and all that was going on in the nation.

there are very key elements you totally do not recognize in your thinking here, that you leave out. the three you conclude are really incomplete conclusions. i am always disappointed when we talk about this period of time and we reduce it to this. hence never really delving into the conversation.

but. you are not correct.

[RufusTFirefly]

59. "I am not getting into this." Lemme guess...

You'll tell us your answer on Jan. 20, 2017?

[seabeyond]

63. i would never and have never had this conversation on du. this one, it is like talking to the

people in my area. they have no desire to hear it, let alone listen, process, then discuss.

[hifiguy]

65. Blammo.

[Exultant Democracy]

72. Your secret reasons are like Trumps secret plans "trust me it's wicked smart"

Put up or shut up as they say. If you have a reason post it otherwise telling people they are wrong but that your unwilling to share your reasons very childish.

You screwed together the ability to post a few time on this thread, but continue to bemone the effort that it would take to actually express yourself. That takes a champion.

[seabeyond]

83. thre is nothing secret about my reason, just not a conducive conversation to be had on du.

[Exultant Democracy]

86. 'Not secret I just won't tell you." - classic!

The thing is you are having the conversation only you refusing to share the particulars about your belief while saying the other are wrong about this private information you won't share on DU. It would be better not to post at all on threads like this with your attitude.

[seabeyond]

89. i wont bother cause it is a waste of time. i do not know why it is so challenging for you to

get that.

my rw fox news watching brother loves talking politics. loves talking to me about politics. i refuse. i do not bother. because i know about his wall ahead f time. know the frustration, and waste of time in it.

that

[Exultant Democracy]

96. Yet posting about it isn't a waste of time, just posting about the specifics.

What is challenging for me to understand is why you are participating on this thread at all since you effectively have nothing to say. Just don't post if this is how you are going to participate.

Saying you have a reason but you wont share it is like the discussion board equivalent of a child flipping over the monopoly board. Either behave like an adult or don't play, it is pretty simple. If you are not a child then I am having trouble understanding what is so challenging about this simple concept for you to understand.

[mike_c]

119. it's like the text of the TPP, huh?

Not secret at all. You just don't get to see it.

[seabeyond]

120. you can read my other posts as we pretend of this game, secret. but why bother, right?

a perfect example why i do not waste my time.

[beam me up scottie]

122. ^^^This^^^

[Bubzer]

144. This comment seems full of passive aggressive condescension and false superiority.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's how I see it. You seem to be suggesting that you have insight that others lack... but you're not willing to discuss it here... and you've taken the position that your hidden knowledge makes you correct.

Yet, if you weren't willing to discuss it, why bring it up at all? It has the feel like your trying to boost your ego by telling others you're in the know and they're not. Nothing is gained by not discussing whatever nuances you've discovered.

[GitRDun]

57. You could have shortened this one up into just one sentence

Hillary Clinton is contemptible.

You've only posted about this 100 times. We all understand you hate her. No need to keep telling us.

How about telling us all how your candidate proposes to fund his $1 trillion infrastructure package?

That would at least be useful information.

[RufusTFirefly]

67. News flash: The people who died because of that vote haven't come back from the dead

And many of those who were badly injured or traumatized are still so today. This is not old news.

[GitRDun]

70. Lol and you think ANYONE on a Democratic web site doesn't know that?

That is not old news...agreed.

cali posting the 100th different version of her "Hillary is contemptible" meme is, in fact, old news. We all know how she feels about Hillary already.

How about you answer my question on Bernie's infrastructure proposal? How does he pay for it? Or is it too much to ask for some real information instead of hyperbole?

[RufusTFirefly]

75. We always seem to have money for war.

What does Bernie's infrastructure proposal have to do with Hillary's horrible judgment?
If it weren't for the fact that I was only born yesterday, I might think that you were trying to change the subject.

It's fascinating that people only seem to ask "How are we going to pay for this?" when it doesn't involve bombing the daylights out of people who did nothing to us.

[GitRDun]

80. Good job Rufus you proved my point

cali's post is not about Hillary's judgement. It is yet another way for cali to express her feelings on DU that Hillary is contemptible. I think I've expressed that point clearly in my posts. Surely you have seen her dozens of posts that pretty much sum up the top 100 reasons cali thinks Hillary is contemptible.

The infrastructure question was to make a point. That point is that what happens here on DU lately is largely reflexive lashing out and emotion...not substance.

You cannot answer the infrastructure question because BS has no answer yet. Maybe he will at some point.

And...lol...instead of having some knowledge on the topic and saying something along the lines of "well, all Hillary has proposed is an I-Bank with no means to pay for it and MOM has proposed nothing. At least my guy has an affirmative plan to do something", you come up with some weird insult that infers that I support bombing people.

Don't be part of the problem Rufus....

[Martin Eden]

64. A Hillary supporter has been arguing for a 4th reason:

BlueCaliDem in this thread argued it was Hillary Clinton's DUTY to vote for the IWR because New Yorkers demanded retribution for 9/11.

It's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever come across, but BCD sticks by it no matter how many times people explain the insanity of that argument.


BTW,
I've been listing the 3 reasons (pretty much the same) for quite some time.

[hifiguy]

69. That argument is EASILY one of the

10 stupidest things ever posted on DU.

[mike_c]

121. I think that's just another variant of #3....

"HRC voted for war against Iraq because she feared the political consequences of doing the right thing instead." I think she was more craven that that-- I think she actually saw a political upside to killing a million innocent Iraqis, rather than simply the downside of representative politics. Also, just as many New Yorkers marched for peace as did folks elsewhere, so there was clearly a strong anti-war sentiment in New York, too.

[jfern]

125. A majority of members of Congress from NYC voted no

As you can see here. I'm not sure exactly which districts were NYC at the time, but I'm guessing NY 6-16, of which 7 voted no and 4 voted yes.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

[davidthegnome]

76. Hmm.

I think we need to consider that there were lies told, evidence faked - and that not everyone would have thought there was a need to sift through the bull shit to find the truth. We had plenty of people on both sides of the fence telling us the Iraq war was necessary - the voices against it were not quite as loud or as numerous - or simply did not have the media time and focus received by the Bush administration during that time.

A picture was painted of a madman with WMD - and after 9/11, people were still either angry or scared, politicians among them. None of this excuses what happened, or a lack of due diligence... but I think that good and decent people were in favor of the war, mostly because they didn't realize the truth. During the protests (which most of my family took part in) I had this kind of vague hope that the inspectors would be given more time - and when nothing was found, the whole thing would be dropped.

However, the Bush administration orchestrated a grand scheme, having very intelligent and respected people convinced (Powell, for one, Kerry for another) that Iraq was a real and present danger.

I can understand the people that were confused, or simply fooled into believing the bull shit. Doesn't mean they were stupid, intelligent people do dumb shit all the time.

All that being said.... I do think we need to consider that those who voted in favor did not perhaps, dig deep enough, did not know the facts well enough - and that some simply did not care but went with what was popular. There should be a deep, almost sacred obligation to know what the hell is going on before we send our troops to war. That obligation was not met, much as the obligation to our veterans is not now being met as it should.

This is why I voted for Obama, because he made the right decision when so many others did not. This is also one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to vote for Clinton - and why I was hesitant to vote for Kerry. This doesn't mean I think they're bad people, but I do think we need a Commander in Chief who takes that ultimate responsibility as seriously as it should be taken. I think Obama did - and I think he still does, whatever other arguments I have with him.

[pnwmom]

82. Thank you for your very thoughtful answer to the OP. n/t

[delrem]

143. No. Some of the largest demonstrations IN HISTORY were mounted against the Iraq war.

The opposition was WORLD WIDE.

Everyone with any conscience at all knew the war was coming, and that it was WRONG. It was ILLEGAL. It was BASED IN LIES.

Don't you try to re-write history and pretend that all of us who were aghast at what was happening, what was about to happen, the sheer depravity of it, didn't exist. Don't exist. Just because you happened to be clueless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

[davidthegnome]

154. I know how big the demonstrations were.

I took part in them - and no, not everyone with any conscience knew that it was wrong, or that it was coming - it was never that black and white (not for everyone). I had some hope that war would be averted, at first, I think a lot of people did. Many people believed the lies, that there was a madman with WMD ready to use them, maybe on us. Many people believed that Saddam had played some part in 9/11.

Plenty of us knew better, but not everyone did. People get their information from different sources, then as now - and a lot of the information that is available is either inaccurate, or only half accurate. You know as well as I do how the media can twist the truth or ignore it altogether.

I'm not saying the war was right, or that people were right to vote in favor of it. Yes it was wrong, damned wrong - but not everyone knew that. People were lied to, misled, uninformed.

I'm not re-writing anything, I'm pointing out that people believed those lies. I don't know if you actually read my post or not, because I think I made it pretty clear that I was against the war. My point is that Kerry, Clinton - and others, did not support it because they were evil and/or stupid - they supported it because they were lied to, because they were misinformed. I think that, had everyone known then what we know now, the war would never have happened.

As far as the world-wide protests are concerned, I think it's pretty common knowledge that, in the whole world, our Nation is one of the most poorly informed as to what the hell is actually going on - I suspect that a small number (outside of this forum) even knew much, or cared much, about the global protests. Plenty of people watched the news and heard Bush ranting about Saddam and WMD and Al Qaeda - and these people believed him. I recall the media coverage of the protests in particular being very small, very vague - just as it was with OWS.

Right and wrong is not that simple of a concept. People of conscience are often misled into doing something wrong or foolish. Intelligent people do stupid things every day.

I am not trying to excuse those who didn't perform their due diligence, but I am saying that the idea that they were ALL evil, greedy, and/or stupid is inaccurate.

I agree with you, then as now, that the war was wrong, illegal - and based on lies. Not everyone knew that it was based on lies. Many believed those lies.

[delrem]

158. bullshit. Hillary Rodham Clinton knew it was a lie.

When she mentioned 9/11 in her sick little speech explaining her vote for war she knew that drawing that connection was the heart of the lie.

The USA's war of aggression, of choice, on Iraq, *after* Iraq had been disarmed and weakened to the point of penury, of sickness and death by sanctions even on products needed for the health of children, completed the destruction of a country. Of a whole people. Hundreds of thousands dead, millions mutilated, birth defects from hell - millions fleeing in desperation. And that's just the start. Next there's the destruction of Libya when Hillary Rodham Clinton assumed power as SOS - and her amoral cackle, she was so pleased with what she did. So uncaring of the consequences, of the evil she unleashed. It was all for war profit - nothing else. And the destruction of Syria, and the destruction of democracy in Honduras. The embrace of Henry Kissinger, who shares her amoral world view.

Don't you be telling me that Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't know what she was doing. That she was just so confused... Because she wasn't.

[davidthegnome]

159. I don't know about her specifically.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps she did know and went along with it anyway - what I would have a hard time understanding is the why of it. I understand Cheney's ambitions - profit. Clinton's are not so simple in this particular instance, I mean, I KNOW Cheney profited financially due to his investments, I don't know whether Clinton did.

I remember, just before the war, my Father and I went to a University and watched a presentation on the sanctions - the damage they had done, the damage they were still doing. This was a Country that couldn't even get desperately needed medical supplies because they might somehow use some of them as a weapon. The birth defects, the dead, the mutilated... yeah, it was all there for anyone who cared to see.

Maybe it's naive to think that these politicians... these people in a position to know, did not know as much as I did, hell, I was only 18 in 02. Perhaps I give their humanity too much credit, or their ignorance and greed not enough.

I don't think that anyone who saw what my Father and I did that day would have voted for the IWR, at least, we sure as hell wouldn't have. It goes well beyond sad, well beyond morbid and into the territory of sadism, cowardice... and crimes against humanity, if they KNEW there were no WMD - and voted in favor regardless.

Yeah, maybe I'm wrong. I still don't think that EVERYONE who supported it did so knowingly. Not everyone knew what was going on... but those who were responsible for knowing should have known enough to keep us out of that war, the more I think about it, the more it makes no sense that they could have been so ignorant. Then again... considering our current congress - and a good portion of the senate, ignorance is kind of what they do.

The WHY of it still escapes me. Why would a war veteran (who later protested that same war) like John Kerry support the IWR? Maybe he believed diplomacy would be exhausted? Perhaps he believed the inspectors would be allowed to finish and say, "No WMD here. Can we go home now?" Or perhaps he too knew what he was doing. Perhaps it's all a damn charade and none of them have the sort of humanity that I like to give people credit for.

I certainly don't disagree with you about the war. It sickens me now as much as it did then, though now there is a lot more sadness. I think that there will be a price to pay for that, it any such thing as karma exists. What it comes down to for me, is imagining the same sort of thing happening here at home. My own children mutilated, or born deformed. My own parents blown to bits. My own arm lost, for the crime of living in a Country that dared the anger of the USA.

Maybe she wasn't confused, maybe none of them were, but to believe that, I'd really have to see some kind of proof. I just can't swallow it otherwise. Not that so many people I thought of as good would do such a damned terrible thing.

[pnwmom]

79. Wrong. And this is why Senators Kerry, Biden, and Clinton, among other Democrats,

voted for it that fall.

They knew that Bush had an extremely high likelihood of getting the IWR from the incoming Rethug Congress -- a blank check IWR. So, instead, they voted for an IWR dependent on the Bush administration meeting UN conditions and finding WMD's.

Bush, in the spring, chose to ignore the conditions. But if he hadn't gotten the fall IWR, he would have gotten one in January, anyway, from the new Republican-led congress -- without any conditions. Defeating the fall IWR wouldn't have stopped him from going to war.

Senator Ted Kennedy, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted against the IWR. He said he did that because of special presentations of classified information he was given as a member of the Committee. He knew that what Colin Powell was saying in public was not the same as what Kennedy was learning in secret. But Kennedy would have been violating his security clearance if he had shared what he knew with other Dems.

Kennedy never blamed the Dems who voted for the IWR for their mistake because they didn't have access to the information that he did. Before this happened, Powell was viewed as being above politics; the Dems had even once sought him out as a Democratic Presidential candidate. His reputation among Dems after this was destroyed.

[cali]

90. most dems voted.against it

Pat Leahy said it was a blank check. It was. It took no inside information.whatsofuckingever to know that the so called intelligence was bullshit and that Bush would go to war. It took nothing but common sense to know it would be a disaster

[pnwmom]

91. That's true. Most Dems knew that there would be just enough votes to allow for its passage.

They didn't have to think about adding theirs, too.

[LuvLoogie]

81. Your contempt is noted...

and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...and noted...

[JoePhilly]

84. 4) To put pressure on Saddam to ensure he let the inspectors back in.

Which actually happened about one month after the IWR passed.

Saddam had kicked the inspectors out in 1998, and continually played as if he would allow them back in, and would then renege each time.

For many, a vote for the IWR was intended to ensure Saddam let the inspectors back in, and if he did not, only as a last resort, we could invade.

Which is the same reason Kerry signed it.

Or ... Hillary is just evil manifest in flesh. And Kerry wasn't.

[Exultant Democracy]

88. You mean 4. Taking Bush's assessment re: inspection over Hans Blix's.

Stupid is often the greater part of evil? Giving Bush his war was stupid, most of DU knew it at the time and most of us called eve thing that has happened since then, up to and including ISIS. (Although ISIS was a year ahead of my time table it was still pretty close)

Anyone who looks at Hans Blix and Geroge Bush and thinks Bush is the credible sources is not qualified for any office. That hold for everyone who fucked up the most important vote they can be asked to make.

[JoePhilly]

150. Except your time line is wrong.

Blix concluded Iraq had no WMDs during Jan-Feb 2003. The IWR vote was taken in Oct 2002.

Notice the order of events there?

At the time of the IWR vote, no inspector had been in Iraq since 1998. Blix got to go back in because of the IWR vote, not before it. Inspectors only returned to Iraq in Nov 2002, after tha IWR vote.

If you don't know the actual time line of events, your arguments on this point are not credible.

[postatomic]

85. More dumpster diving

One persons trash is another persons reason to attack Hillary.

Is this really what it's come down to? Sad.

[Depaysement]

87. No. 2 has a lot of subparts nt

[neverforget]

94. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy from 2014:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-obama-foreign-policy

Clinton criticized Obama for being too cautious when it comes to intervening abroad.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg asked Clinton about the Obama administration's foreign affairs motto, "Don't do stupid shit."

“Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle," Clinton responded.

She acknowledged that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy." But she added that this wasn't the best approach.

She voted for the Iraq War and got her wish with bombing Libya. Now how have those worked out for us?

[Sancho]

95. These OPs aren't logical, and really are a form of "bash and trash" baiting...

Of course, anyone can disagree with me if they like:

First the "premise":

There are only 3 reasons to have voted for the IWR.

That's simply not true nor provable. For example, someone could have taken a large bribe from a middle east country (Iran? Kuwait) in order to attack Iraq!! Isn't that what we're looking for in those emails between the yoga and cake recipes?

For that matter, someone could have taken a large bribe to vote AGAINST the IWR (Israel?)!!! There's no way to state that there are "ONLY 3 REASONS".

Next, since we really don't KNOW the reason or how many reasons there really are...the next conclusion can't follow, but let's look at it anyway:

They are all contemptible.

Let's check in for contemptible:

deserving of contempt or scorn; worthless; despicable

http://www.yourdictionary.com/contemptible

and apply it to the "reasons":

1) You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to go to war.

2) For whatever reasons, you wanted a war with Iraq.

3) Political expediency. You thought voting yes would be better for your political career.

#1 Many parts to this logical disaster:

Do intelligent people ever make mistakes? If they do, should they be held in contempt as worthless because they made a mistake? Has Bernie or Jimmy Carter or any other person you can name made a "mistake" even though by all accounts they were actually intelligent? If so, does that mean they are people of bad character and worthy of contempt?

I say "NO". If Bernie made a mistake voting for continued military funding, voting to protect gun manufacturers, or failing to run as a Democrat in past decades - I consider those mistakes. That doesn't mean that Bernie is "stupid" or that he should be held in contempt. It just means he made some big judgmental mistakes. If he's a person of character, he will realize his mistakes and fess up and report his change of position!!!

You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to go to war.

Millions of people trusted Bush/Cheney - including lots of politicians, Democrats, and international leadership from all over the world. Some believed them outright, others were skeptical, but I was even wondering (at the time) if Colin Powell was really reporting the truth about Iraq at the UN. 82 Democrats in the House and 29 in the Senate voted "yea".

The IWR was not a "blank check", in theory it was to support the UN resolution. In hindsight we all know that Congress declares "war". What happened to Obama's request for support last year? The fact that Congress doesn't do it's job is not "stupid" either - it's a problem - but not stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

#2

For whatever reasons, you wanted a war with Iraq.

Again, there simply is no logic here. The IWR did not "declare war"! It allowed Bush to create a mess, but it was not a declaration of war. It was to "defend national security" and "enforce a UN resolution." In hindsight it seems easy, but remember this was before we knew what would happen. Do you really think that Hillary or Congress wanted a war? If so, why not put forth a declaration of war? There have been LOTS of UN resolutions, and some have been pretty irrelevant (no fly zones or cease fires), but others have been preludes to what can only be called wars. I don't really see that most of Congress wanted war in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. In almost every case part of government managed to get the US sucked into a conflict that was always difficulty to predict or else most would never have gotten into it in the first place. This is nothing new, and likely it will happen again. Democratic Presidents seem to avoid getting sucked in much more often than repubs. Still, it appears to happen over and over. It doesn't follow that those who voted for the IWR "wanted war".

#3

Political expediency. You thought voting yes would be better for your political career.

Logically, that could be said for those who voted "Yea" and those who voted "Nea". There's no telling if some voted - not because they HATED the idea of war, but only because they thought the people then represented (in Vermont or NY) simply wanted them to vote that way!!! It doesn't mean either was "wrong" or " immoral" or "stupid" or "contemptible" because they voted the way that the people who sent them to Washington wanted them to vote!! Is there any other reason that Bernie isn't stronger on gun control? He's representing his constituents! F35? Heck, Bernie in that case voted AGAINST most of his voters! Why? Was he "stupid" or did he "want a war with Canada" or was he paid off by the MI complex? Who knows? What we do know is that politicians in the House and Senate will OFTEN vote to represent their district or state, even it if conflicts with their personal beliefs. Bernie, Hillary, and almost all politicians do that sometimes. It's a compromise, and they often go back and try to educate their voters, and they sometimes lose the next election. No one can ignore the people who sent them to Washington. If they do, then won't have a political career. Anyone who has lasted more than a few years MUST have done what was "better for your political career" at some point. That is NOT "contemptible". You may not agree with any or all of those representing others, but deriding them is bad form and logic.

For example, Vermont is a state that does NOT have tuition equity for undocumented people. NY and Maryland do. That means that if you were brought to Vermont as a 5 year old (illegally) and went your whole life to school in Vermont while your parents worked and paid taxed in Vermont - your would pay OUT OF STATE tuition just like an international student!! Maybe you would not be admitted to college at all! Is that fair? If I was an immigrant and voting in a Democratic primary, I would be concerned about someone from a state with that kind of unfair situation. Does that make Bernie "contemptible"? No, but it means he "owns" the place he represents.
http://cccie.org/images/stories/DEEP_Tuition_Equity_Map_August_2013.pdf

In other words, OPs that just "bash" don't change anyone's mind, and don't provide any new information to the discussion about candidates in most cases. I'd prefer to see real issues discussed. If someone didn't like the IWR and they are a one-issue voter, that's fine, but it's a stretch to call anyone "contemptible", especially if it's one of our fine Democratic candidates.

[cali]

97. Patrick Leahy repeatedly warned it was a blank check.

Funny, I take his word over yours..

[Sancho]

100. Again, not logical....

If half the people say the stock market will go up and half say it will go down - a little while later half were "right"!!!

If Leahy was able to predict the future on every issue - then show me the evidence!!!

Almost EVERY decision has someone say "that's gonna be bad" and someone else say "it's the best thing since sliced bread".

The question is whether we should call Leahy "contemptible" I remember when Leahy made a BIG mistake - on par with emails or worse!! Does that mean he should be impeached or prosecuted or called names? No, he admitted the mistake!

During his tenure as Vice-Chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 1987, Leahy showed an unclassified draft report on the Iran-Contra affair to a news reporter. At a press conference, Leahy stated, "Even though it was declassified, I was way too careless about it," and accepted blame. Disclosure of that information was against the Intelligence Committee rules, and Leahy said he hastened his already planned departure from the committee because he was so angry at himself.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy

[ismnotwasm]

102. That is an intelligent and well though out reply

A true breathe of fresh air

[George II]

108. Excellent response - stripped the rhetoric away to expose the substance and reality. Thanks!

[Thinkingabout]

115. A good post, researched and easy to read.

Actually there was already a bill which covered the invasion on Iraq.

[PBass]

132. Great post. THIS should be the thread topic, not the simplistic one we have. (NT)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

103. 4) To give Bush authorization not expecting he'd actually use it.

Thus putting you on the pedestal of Good Judgement.

Then your family proceeds to chill with his family like you're best buds and all this stuff isn't all that important.

[GoneFishin]

104. Or, you could have been drunk or incompetent, which covers about 50% of Republicans.

[George II]

106. Being stupid is "contemptable"?

[NuttyFluffers]

113. two out of my three representatives voted 'no'. :)

because where i live we have clever people who vote for better politicians who stand behind principle first!

you should all get better politicians.

[mike_c]

114. I'd like to modify your reasons to better reflect their reality....

1) You were so stupid that you trusted Bush Cheney enough to hand them a blank check to commit crimes against humanity.

2) For whatever reasons, you wanted an illegal war of aggression to subjugate Iraq.

3) Political expediency. You thought voting to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens would further your political career.

[reddread]

118. IWR was just showbiz

the decision to go into the middle east was made years before.
the movements of materials and troops was made clear to me by a friend in the Air Force in 99.
There was no way we werent going in, because all the moves were already being made.
We really need to have a better grasp of long term strategic planning by the war hawks we keep giving
too much credit and doubtful benefits to.

[MisterP]

145. they'd been waiting for this for over a decade

same with the Patriot Act: they had it all prepared by--what, Sept. 14, 2001? everyone's fussing about MIHOP when they had a blueprint for dictatorship waiting: it could've been anything, even a dam burst with a little looting that'd turn out to be sensationalist fabrications

[reddread]

148. do you suppose the interlude was meant to get GHWB reelected?

Perhaps the only reason we pulled back from Iraq was to give GHWB his fourth term?
Nice to think they made that big a miscalculation.
The horror and tragedy that we unleashed over the years there should be a yoke on every
Americans neck.
and the architects should be on trial.

[jfern]

123. She didn't even bother to read the intelligence report

The Chair of the Senate Intelligence committee urged every Senator to read it. He voted no. She voted for a $2 trillion war without reading it.

[PBass]

131. Here's another good reason:

You believe that the President (and future Presidents) should have all options available to them.

That's a legitimate reason.

[BlueStateLib]

133. You don't get it.

"Desert Storm" never ended, 1992 Gulf War was stopped by ceasefire

Does Bush Need Congressional Okay to Invade Iraq?
Aug. 26 2002

On Aug. 26, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)·

2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today
·
3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·

"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has that full authority," a senior White House official told the Washington Post
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011884.php
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

[marym625]

135. Absolutely!

There is no doubt that people who voted for that illegal war gained politically and/or monetarily. I tried to do some investigative work on that very thing in the hopes of writing an article about it. Unfortunately, I'm not an investigative journalist so I got stuck. But I proved it to me

Just look at where those that voted for it are now. Or the majority of them anyway.

No way anyone in office didn't know the truth.

[Puzzledtraveller]

137. Cali nails it again!

[cprise]

139. Those Clinton "increasing negatives"...

are I think due to people remembering where she stood on the IWR.

If Sanders does anything right in his campaign (and I'm sure he'll do many things right), it should be to evoke the memory of the 2000's antiwar movement and Occupy.