Pro-War Votes May Haunt Democrats

[NVMojo]

should read "pro-invasion" votes ...

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Potential Democratic presidential candidates who voted to give President Bush the authority to use force in Iraq could face a political problem - they supported a war that their party's rank-and-file now strongly view as a mistake.

Their pro-war votes - cast three years ago - could haunt them as they seek early support among die-hard Democrats and gauge whether to launch formal candidacies for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.

"For a lot of activists, this could be a threshold issue. They may be looking for somebody without any taint for prior support for the war," said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California.

Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina are mulling over running for the Democratic nomination. All voted in October 2002 for a resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2005/oct/17/101708840.html

[aquart]

1. Gee whiz. I hope so.

When Schumer and Clinton betrayed me by voting for the war, I felt I had no representation in Congress.

[saigon68]

81. They were IDIOTS then ---THEY ARE IDIOTS NOW

DINOS ALL

We told them they were wrong they went ahead and performed a "LEWINSKY" on bush and cheney's dick

They will get nothing but derision from me.

[elehhhhna]

125. I've seen no evidence there IS a Dem party in this millenium.

Yet.

[goforit]

157. When Kerry drew the curtain on 11/04, I bet he voted for Bush!!!

This guy's grand-dad was the founder of the Skull n Bone Society,
and he never appeared too upset about loosing 04' at all.

He never contested the illegal vote,
Which makes him a whimp through and through!!!

These Frat boys stick together like glue.
And it will be important for these sick bastards to continue
the War mongering mantra that Bush has fermented.
Remember.....
Libby said the Aspens were changing....but that they remain
deeply rooted.
So watch these deeply rooted secret society asses try to
continue their domain.

[karynnj]

192. Kerry has fought these people harder than anyone else

He fought against Nixon's Vietnam war - who ordered Colson to destroy him. He was harrassed, had his tires slashed, rocks thrown through windows and his reputation trashed.

After this, knowing how they fight, Kerry was the sole Senator who was willing to risk his reputation investigating Reagan/Bush allowing drugs into this country.

He then again persisted in a 5 year investigation of BCCI which laundered money and connected both drug dealers and terrorists. He pursued this way beyond his Senate position when he was stopped there. The BinLadens were involved with this bank, which also gave W a loan.

For 21 years in the Senate he has been a pretty dependable liberal vote and has avoided the corruption scandals that have tainted many politicians at his level.

So which should have more weight the nearly 40 years of Kerry's life since college (most of it very public) - where he has clearly been a force for good or the fact that he was inducted into a prestigious fraternity as a college senior.

This group is (correctly) quite willing to ignore that Clark was a Republican for most of his adult life and that Dean was a very moderate Democrat (in a liberal state) for most of his life. But, out of sheer nastiness - Kerry's entire commendable adult life is ignored and people post stupid absolutely unfounded accusations that he is complicit in the Bush family's actions.

[malaise]

193. I don't know about you but in hindsight

I'm very glad Kerry was robbed in Ohio last year. None of this would have come out and this evil bunch would have been busy plotting for the future.

If Fitz hands down indictments, losing the election was well worth it.
Further watching Delay, Frist and all the other dons of the 'culture of corruption' being investigated and indicted is sheer joy. All Bushco won last year was a Pyrrhic victory.

[karynnj]

195. I agree that it may be a Pyrrhic victory for them

and it may in fact be what's needed to actually get the nation to turn away from that path. If it weren't for Iraq, this might have been a good long term gain. But the short term costs will be enormous. The RW would have tried to make life hell for a President Kerry, but he would have had the power to make somethings better.


What I mean about Iraq:
-He would likely have done what he proposed in Iraq - just by quickly training Iraqis in France, Germany, Egypt and Jordan (as they all offered), now 10 months into his Presidency, there would likely be far more than 1 trained Battalion. He would have at least used every contact and every bit of diplomatic skill that he or anyone he trusted had to work with Iraq's neighbors to change the tone.

Listening to him question Rice yesterday - he was saying that the Iraqi leaders, people and our military all want the US to start to leave (he mention Tallibani saying 45,000-50,000 troops could leave by the end of the year and Gen Casey saying the same thing - until the Bush administration called both. He brilliantly quoted Melvin Laird, old Nixon guy who saying much the same. He also seemed to suggest that the way things are going Bush's democracy will lead to Iraq being a country with an Islamic government allied to Iran rather than a secular government. Seeing him (and Feingold, Obama, Boxer etc) ask questions that Rice answered in a nasty abrupt defensive way, it was impossible not to want that man to be president now.

Even though it couldn't be said during a campaign, as president I think Kerry would have been able to quietly use the fact that he spoke up for international law and against war crimes as a young man to very convincingly tell middle east leaders that he would not continue the abuses that Bush condoned. More than anyone else he could change the tone and get cooperation. (McCain is often given credit on torture because he was tortured, but isn't it more significant to risk your career (when you are safe) to speak out when your own country is doing wrong.) So under a President Kerry, I think we would have soldiers coming home and less danger for those still in country.

However,
All the Bush shenanigans would likely have stayed under cover, so his position and that of his subordinates would be much stronger than they might be.

In real life, Kerry responded faster to Katrina (by calling Lott and sending (with Teresa) a plane load of needed stuff) even though he was in Iraq and a MA Senator when it occured. He also got legislation passed to get money to affected small businesses - although the Republicans passed it only when he took his name off it - although it was mostly written by him and his staff. As president, he clearly would have been more involved, but it would still have been a major disaster and he would likely have been blamed.

His budget would have been saner and would help people who need it. There is no way legislation to make the tax cuts permanent would even be on the table - he would have vetoed it.

He would have picked better Supreme court picks.

It might be that Kerry would have been a hard first term, blamed by the RW wing for losing Iraq, raising taxes( by not making the tax cuts permanent), being slow to fix everything with Katrina, and changing the balance of the supreme court. The pundits would say that he couldn't pass many things he wanted - because of the Republican congress and that he was ineffective. Whether incumpancy and being better known by people would let him win in 2008 is hard to tell - no one would know what (actually did happen under Bush).

[malaise]

196. I don't think America or the world

can move forward until the neo-agenda is dead and buried. I bawled last November but I am way more optimistic today.

I have no doubt that Kerry would have done things better, but there would have been no defeat of these plutocratic ideals if the 'culture of corruption' and illegal foreign policy agenda were not completely exposed and dealt with.
This has been an unbelievable year of exposures and Katrina was merely the icing on the cake. Perhaps the US can start over with a wipe out of the Rethugs next November. The current path is destroying everyone except the rich.

I hope my optimism is not misplaced.

[karynnj]

197. I see what you mean

one thing I found interesting last summer was hearing Kerry's Senate speech from 1971, I had forgotten or never picked up on his challange at the end that it was important that (Vietnam) cause the country to turn and that the soldiers would have helped in the turning. That was almost 35 years ago and he was saying then our foreign policy had to turn - he's fought it his whole career - while most of us didn't see it.

That not seeing it would continue unless it's exposed. It's a real question whether as president, Kerry would use the scarce political capital to open up to view this whole can of worms or whether he would simply try to fix things. The danger would be that with everything that has happened this year, plus the Republican noise machine (that wanted to try him for treason), he would have a mediocre first term and they would then be back in power in 4 years.

What we have to be careful about is that all these relevations don't simply elect a Democrat who would do the same or someone like McCain who is perceived to be clean, but has the same policies. If either of these happen we lose, with no gain for all the pain.

[malaise]

198. That is key

fundamenal changes have to take place. Nothing less than a new deal is acceptable. Further new laws have to be drawn up re elected officials relatives workign for lobbyists.

Money will have to be found for a complete reform of education and health care. Additionally states will ahve to modernize critical infrastructure, bridges, dams, levees, etc. The massive disparities in salaries between executives and workers must go. Reagan's deregulation of everything failed big time. Time for a New Deal for ordinary people.

[cantstandbush]

82. If they had come out and denounced the war after learning there were no

WMDs, they might not have trouble. But supporting the war even after the lies were exposed makes them as bad as the Republicans who knew about the lies all along.

[IndianaGreen]

83. Kerry said he would have voted for IWR even had he known there were no WMD

Remember Kerry's colossal faux pas during the campaign when, after David Kay said there were no WMDs in Iraq, Kerry said that he would still have voted for IWR?

While we should be prepared to forgive anyone that makes an act of contrition (a good Catholic concept), and redeems himself/herself (a good Christian concept), by making amends (a good Jewish concept) for the war vote, we should also resolutely reject any unrepentant prowar candidate.

[Andromeda]

84. Kerry didn't want to look like a flip-flopper...

and I think that's why he said what he did about voting for IWR even if he had known there were no WMD.

He really put his foot in his mouth when he did that and I think he was afraid to take it back because the Republicans were hammering him so badly that he didn't want to appear indecisive.

It was a tactical mistake, IMHO.

[Seabiscuit]

99. "tactical mistake", my ass! It was a MORAL FAILURE!

[elehhhhna]

126. THANK YOU.

[leesa]

170. That's right. This isn't about politics...it's about right and wrong.

None of them have come out to say this war is illegal and must be stopped.

[bklyncowgirl]

103. Tried not to look like a flip flopper--came off looking like an ass.

This was clearly not Kerry's best moment and essentially took the subject of the Iraq war off the table except for the incompetent way that the Bush administration was waging it.

[second edition]

106. Give the guy a break, the question wasn't heard correctly. n/t

[Seabiscuit]

139. I gave Kerry a break during the election and he betrayed my trust.

Why should anyone "give him a break" after the way he folded on Iraq during the campaign and again after vowing to make sure "every vote is counted"???

And what question wasn't heard correctly and by whom? And whoever it was what was incorrect about the way it was heard?

[Andromeda]

177. Maybe, but I don't think Kerry is an ass.

He came off looking like one in this case but I still think it was just a tactical mistake.

Haven't you ever said something and, whoops (giggling nervously), hoped that nobody heard you? He would have been hammered if he had admitted he was wrong. There were so many things out there that the Republicans were trying to smear him with he probably thought backtracking wouldn't be helpful at that time.

I'm a forgiving kind of person and I don't expect perfection from our leaders. They are human and they make mistakes.

[wryter2000]

124. Amen to that

we should also resolutely reject any unrepentant prowar candidate.

And anyone who voted for that bankruptcy bill has a hell of a lot to atone for. (Are you listening, Biden?) :mad:

[Martin Eden]

143. I was just recalling that too

and how stupid it was for him to say it. I think it may have been an instinctive response amid all the charges of flip-flopping. He ended up painting himself into a worse corner of having to criticize the president on a war that even in hindsight he himself still supports.

I think he missed a good opportunity to say something like:

If we knew then what we know now -- no WMD or ties to al Qaeda -- there WOULD NOT have been an IWR vote.

This would have highlighted the chasm between Bush's rhetoric and reality. Kerry could have reasonably argued he still trusted this president at the time of the IWR vote and felt the need for a strong united front in the wake of 9/11. He then could have made a very good case of how Bush betrayed the trust -- not only Kerry's, but of all Americans -- that was placed in him.

Of course, Kerry would have been a fool to ever trust this administration -- he should have known what we at DU already knew about PNAC, etc. Nevertheless, I think he missed a golden opportunity to find an angle and an argument to really turn Iraq against the incumbent "war-time" president.

[Zhade]

153. "we should also resolutely reject any unrepentant prowar candidate."

Without question.

[indepat]

115. Certainly does make them as bad as the rethugs meaning we are f*cked

[Talismom]

91. Same here aquart! After listening to Byrds incredible speech

on WBAI on the way to work, I wrote furious emails to both of them. I mentioned how hard I had worked to get them elected and how my efforts would, next time, go towards "hiring" senators who embraced, rather than handed off to the executive, the rights and responsibilities that the constitution granted to the legislature!

[louis-t]

2. They will have to apologize and say they were wrong.

Act like Democrats.

[4_Legs_Good]

24. They could even say they were misled

That's the best thing to do. Be honest. "George Jr. selected which intelligence to show us, misled us into believing Saddam was an imminent threat, and it was our fault to trust the President."

Granted, that's not good enough for me - The power to declare war should NEVER be given to the Executive Branch, but it'd be a step in the right direction.

Kerry lost the election when he idiotically said that if he knew then what he knows now he still would have voted to give the President the power to wage war.

Feh!

david

[MindPilot]

27. Anybody who was "misled" is too dumb to be in office.

As I've said many times before, anybody with two brain cells and a modem knew there were no WMDs, knew what would happen if Bush was granted the powers to go to war, and knew the "evidence" was fabricated.

Now if tens of thousands--maybe even millions--of nobodies like me can figure that out, I sure as hell ain't buying it from somebody in the House or Senate.

If any of the pro-war Democrats can tell me honestly why they thought it was a good idea at the time, and can now admit it was a really stupid decision, they might have a fighting chance. But if not, well those seats should be occupied by someone who actually represents the voters.

Edited for spelling.

[pokercat999]

52. What if they told the truth>

They were afraid not to vote for Bush as he had what they perceived as popular support in their state. They ALL only want one thing, re-elected no matter which side of the isle.

One term in Federal government and then home never to "serve" again!


Ok, OK! their maybe one congressperson out there that has your best interest at heart....ONLT IT'S NOT YOURS!

[MisterP]

156. of the seats up in '04, 5 pro-war seats were lost while only 1 anti-war

one was. Several also WERE retiring in '03-'04. Those up, to wit (seat losses in bold):
Yes to IWR,
Lincoln
Daschle
Dodd
Miller ret.
Bayh
Breaux ret.
Reid
Schumer
Edwards ret.
Dorgan
Hollings ret.

No to IWR,
Mikulski
Boxer
Graham ret.
Inouye
Wyden
Daschle
Leahy
Murray
Feingold

[DELUSIONAL]

54. I won't vote for anyone who "followed" bushie

These same idiots keep voting for bushies lame brain ideas.

How much courage does honest take??

[EST]

88. I love that line!

If you don't use it as a sig line, I will. It takes more courage than most people have.

[Joe Chi Minh]

65. And anyone who is dumb enough not to vote

for Kerry/Edwards, had better have a well-paid job and pots of money.

[skipos]

74. I was misled

I wasn't totally against this war from the start. I thought we were going about it the wrong way (without UN support) but I would have put money on Saddam having something up his sleeves since he wasn't cooperating with inspectors the way I thought an innocent person would. I thought that Powell made a strong case that Saddam was up to something.

I didn't realize that my government was so commited to war that they warped the facts to support their desires. While I was stupid to have trusted them, I blame this administration for collectively and enthusiastically misleading me. I will never make the same mistake again.

[NVMojo]

86. I appreciate your honesty, skipos. I thought they were liars when I

watched the second plane hit the second tower on 9-11. I believed nothing else they said or did after that ...I guess I was just too cynical ...I also read Project for a New American Century's website before we invaded. It's all spelled out in there ...what their intentions were before 2000.

[NVMojo]

87. I appreciate your honesty, skipos. I thought they were liars when I

watched the second plane hit the second tower on 9-11. I believed nothing else they said or did after that ...I guess I was just too cynical ...I also read Project for a New American Century's website before we invaded. It's all spelled out in there ...what their intentions were before 2000.

[wryter2000]

128. I must admit

I didn't realize the magnitude of their dishonesty until Joe Wilson spoke up. I bought into the idea that Saddam had some biological and chemical weapons. However, the obvious solution to that problem was inspections. I never supported giving idiot boy authority to start a war.

[Seabiscuit]

100. Yeah, Howard Dean could figure it out too - yet we dems didn't give him

the support he deserved back then.

[jamesinca]

121. Howard Dean got it right and guess who else got it right

I think Dennis Kucinich and Wesley Clark got it right too. Maybe my memory fails me but I think those three were against the Iraq war from day one.

In my opinion, those were the 3 best people running in '04.

[Seabiscuit]

165. You got THAT right!

[AlGore-08.com]

148. Gore opposed the war before the Congress even voted on the d*mn resolution

For those who haven't read it, here's his speech from Sept. 23, 2002:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

[Seabiscuit]

166. Yup. Gore's been a progressive dynamo since he won the 2000 election.

... even though - or perhaps because - it was stolen from him.

[karynnj]

186. At the time of the vote, if he were a Senator he would have voted yes

per all his comments at the time

[SoCalDem]

146. Exactly.. can't have it both ways..

If you are too stupid to see what's right in front of you, who needs you in a position of power over our lives and livelihoods?

If you did not buy the WMD story and STILL voted for war, in hopes of getting a leg up by the opposition party, you are too traitorous and duplicitous to represent me..

The choice between stupid and devious is not a real choice

[roguevalley]

147. if we weren't fooled out here with no insider knowledge, there is

no excuse for them, supposedly informed. If we could see bush was a bitch they could too. They didn't. piss on them and that includes Biden, Lieberman, Clinton and Kerry.

[seasat]

45. I actually saw a Democrat admit he was wrong.

Jim Davis, US Rep D-FL said during an interview that knowing what he knows now, he would not have voted for the Iraq war. Davis is running as a candidate for FL Governor.

[Jackpine Radical]

159. That's a good, clean way to handle the issue.

They lied. I believed them. I know better now.

[calimary]

122. It's as simple as saying "I TRUSTED my president, and he LIED to me."

This, from Michael Moore, awhile back.

Some of 'em could still salvage their presidential hopes if they were courageous enough to take this step. Provided they do it SOON. I suspect even this option has a shelf-life. Perhaps they'll show their true "backbone" by doing something like this once the big pile-on starts (brought about by possible indictments from Fitzgerald that focus on cheney and the WHIG and the deceitful marketing of the war that the WHIG plotted - which included slash-and-burn assassination tactics against anyone, like, say, Joseph Wilson, who sought to blow the whistle on what they were up to).

If they wait til then, it'd be a shame, even though it'd be nice to hear them say, finally.

But that's truly ALL they'd have to say: "I TRUSTED my president, and he LIED to me." It would have the added advantage of throwing the blame directly back on bush.

[electropop]

3. This will help cull out the weak.

We don't need another DLC/corporatist/neocon enabler. We need a Democrat this time, somebody with the courage to stand up and speak for us, the courage to vote our values, and the courage to count our votes.

In other words, Boxer/Conyers '08!

[NVMojo]

7. not a bad idea!!

[Blue for Ohio]

23. Yes, Conyers!!

He wrote the report "What Went Wrong in Ohio" (here's a summary and there's a link to the full report at the bottom of that page).

I'd contribute & campaign hard for ANY dem who has Conyers as a running mate - and definitely Boxer!

Blue

(P.S. reformohionow.org)

[cally]

49. Welcome to DU

I hope the reform Ohio campaign succeeds

[lyonn]

29. Boxer speaks her mind and hustles the voters

She appears to be very dedicated to the party be it the far left or center. I have not heard her make a statement that I didn't agree with and isn't afraid to let her ideas be known. What have we Dems been waiting for? If there is a negative concerning her ability to preside over this country please let me know. How about Dean as VP?

[electropop]

31. Dean's OK

but Conyers has actually proven himself in the hot seat. I'd be prefectly happy with Dean though.

[lyonn]

37. Conyers is so on target with his work

But, I'm afraid he doesn't have the pazazz to capture the population in general. He speaks rather slowly and you know how the media can hammer a person for such insignificant nonsense. The guy is high on my list of Congresspeople and being black could be a real plus.

[eridani]

94. Conyers has never expressed interest in being anything other--

--than congressman for his district. He has a great deal of clout right where he is, and he isn't any spring chicken either.

[rucky]

107. Dream ticket! n/t

[wtmusic]

4. Typical Sun story

yes, we fucked up, but you made it possible

sheesh

[marylanddem]

5. I hope so.

They should be ashamed of that shameless vote.

[EFerrari]

6. You know, this sounds a little like Authorized Propaganda

trying to stir up trouble for the Dems? Or is it just me?

[NVMojo]

9. you bet it's propaganda ...Dems should be answering to Dems ...

but with DeLay about to go to jail, various officials biting their nails in anticipation of indictments on Plame case, etc. etc. ....they are desperate to say "over there, over there!" And this is not a Sun story, it's Associated Press!!

[blm]

15. They don't want Bush held accountable for a decision he ALONE made, as per

the IWR.

They refuse to say that IWR had stated guidelines and the WEAPONS INSPECTIONS were to be made FIRST and THEN Bush was given the responsibilty to make his decision BASED on the reports from the weapons inspectors and ONLY if war was unavoidable for our national security.

DEMAND that Bush be forced to explain why he went to war AFTER weapons inspections were proving war was UNNECESSARY.

Blaming the IWR is a LIE.

[lyonn]

32. Right, it was a threat to the Senate that if

you vote this down we won't be able to force the inspectors back in. My problem at the time was that the Dems didn't make this Real Clear and especially when bush declared war and they said nothing. Course the Dems were still being blackmailed in that they were declare un-American if they disagreed with the pres. Dems should have then had the smarts to express there objetion to the war in an intelligent manner which should not have been that difficult. That was my problem with Kerry when he said he would still vote the same even knowing what he knew while campaigning. Bad move on his part.

[rodeodance]

35. i still hear people say that SH kicked the inspecters out. There are so

many lies/ myths distortions to clear up!!! (I know--some will never listen).

[confludemocrat]

39. get real: those who voted against the IWR called it a blank check

that's why the voted against it.

[blm]

56. It wasn't. There were guidelines that Bush wouldn't wait to be completed.

The media SPUN those Dems into describing it as a blank check.

It wasn't. Bush 's responsibility was to make the determination that war was unavoidable even AFTER weapons inspections.

Anyone who blames the IWR and lets Bush off the hook for not following its guidelines is doing exactly what Rove expected.

Blame the IWR and anyone who voted for it and let Bush off the hook.

Name ONE Dem who would have invaded Iraq AFTER weapons inspections.

[PassingFair]

60. Put down the crack pipe!

We all knew where those votes would put us.

It was a CYNICAL vote on behalf of the wimps that went with it. They figured that when it went all to *hit, they could say they were lied to; and if, by chance, the bushies pulled it off, they wouldn't have to walk the plank.

Thousands upon thousands have died. We have invaded and occupied a country that did nothing to us.

[blm]

61. You want to go down on record that Bush implemented IWR honestly?

Or that he administered IWR exactly as written?

Then go ahead and blame the IWR...it still won't be true, though.

BTW....I'm assuming you didn't know that Bush was going in anyway and his alternative plan was to go in with the original 1991 UN res. as Blair wanted because they had greater legal footing with it. But Rove and Bush wanted to use it to divide the Dems for the 2002 and 2004 elections.

So, what the IWR did was put in weapons inspections guidelines that Bush wouldn't have had with the 1991 UN resolution.

Sad, how so many Dems get spun into blaming the IWR and refuse to acknowledge that Bush made the determination to go into Iraq ALONE and AFTER the weapons inspections.

Odd how even good lefties blame the IWR and let Bush off the hook every time they do so.

[PassingFair]

64. Calling our guys out on the carpet does NOT "let Bush off the hook".

Both of my senators voted AGAINST the IWR.

I will work for progressives in the primaries. I will never vote for Biden. Okay, the ONLY way I'd vote for Biden is if JEB were his opponent.

[blm]

66. Call them out if they wanted Bush to go to war. Don't blame IWR for war

though, because in the hands of an honest president, the IWR would have PREVENTED war.

Many Senators do believe in PROCESS. They expect that you need to judge the legislation or the resolution by the standard of How do you vote whether or not the president is Republican or Democrat.

That's Feingold's usual formula for presidential appointees, and other senators who do so on military matters.

But, really.....not even a President Lieberman would have invaded after weapons inspections.

[PassingFair]

69. "in the hands of an honest president"

There's the rub.

It is, and was, common knowledge that the man, and his administration, was not "honest".

[Seabiscuit]

101. Some good points, but you're still missing something...

You keep talking about Bush invading "after the weapons inspections"...

Bush never allowed the U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their job. After Bush finally concluded that France was serious about vetoing any UN resolution authorizing an Iraq invasion, he told the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq in a few days *before* they had had a chance to complete their job. As soon as they left, he invaded.

[blm]

144. That's my point. Bush didn't implement IWR honestly and instead, put up

obstacles for the inspectors.

Bush made his determination AFTER weapons inspections were proving there was no need. He made that decision ON HIS OWN.

[Seabiscuit]

167. All good points.

[EFerrari]

51. They excel at this.

Just like when they say the pResident didn't lie us into a war.

Of course he and the cabal lied. They threw out the legit NIE and redid it in Special Plans. We have their lies on paper.

Bastards.

[wordpix]

189. I agree, it's propaganda

Stir up trouble about how the Dems are just as bad as the Repugs and Cheney-Rummy Cabal, it's definitely a diversionary tactic. Don't fall for it. Although I do think the Dems who voted for the war should have done their own digging and not taken Bushco's word for ANYTHING. We were all more naive then and some of us actually considered the WMD claim might be true.

[LisaM]

8. While I think they should answer for those votes

I don't think it's completely fair to state that they "voted for the war." First, it's not a WAR - it's an invasion, and second, while I vehemently disagree with them, I think they were voting over who has the authority to decide to go to war. Even if they hadn't voted for this, Congress would have voted to invade Iraq anyway.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[confludemocrat]

38. I am saving your post to my archive of the ____est posts ever.

Can you guess what proceeds "est"? It really belongs in the Pantheon. Unless your joking which you gotta be, right? In which case it's hilarious.

[LisaM]

44. Look, I am a pacifist, and I don't agree with the invasion

But I don't see things in black and white. I voted for the true anti-war candidate in the caucus, Dennis Kucinich.

[confludemocrat]

70. Well then, god bless you. I take my hat off to anyone who did that

you're on the side of decency. Sorry to be get so infuriated with, mostly, "it was not a war it was an invasion".

[blm]

59. That's true. I'm angry at the media who pretend

there were no guidelines in the IWR and spun it into a vote for IWR meant FULL SUPPORT of war, completely ignoring the most important guidelines, especially the weapons inspections.

[XemaSab]

10. "may haunt?"

"MAY HAUNT????"

Cough, cough, *primaries* cough, *general election* cough, cough.

I held my nose and voted for Kerry/Edwards, but I hated voting for someone stupid enough to take W at his word...

[tabasco]

11. I handed out pamphlets for Hubert Humphrey when I was 13.

I will not vote for any Democrat that handed madman Bush a gun.

I would rather hasten the inevitable revolution than compromise with the fascists.

[blm]

12. This is how media lets Bush off the hook - the IWR would've PREVENTED WAR

if the president had implemented it HONESTLY.

IWR was SPUN as full support for Bush, but the truth was there were GUIDELINES in the form of WEAPONS INSPECTIONS in which BUSH was given the responsibility to make the determination that war was NECESSARY based on those weapons inspections.

NO Democratic president would have invaded Iraq after weapons inspections. Not even Lieberman.

[Larkspur]

33. No, the Biden-Lugar amendment would have short circuited Bush's war drive

IWR had no teeth for Congress to use to stop Bush. In fact IWR, allowed Bush to initiate military combat BEFORE coming back to Congress. There is no way Congress was going to pull the plug on Bush after he launched the invasion of Iraq.

IWR was a very BAD piece of legislation.

[blm]

53. No way would a letter sent the DAY of invasion have stopped it. That's

ludicrous to believe that. Not even Dean would've sais that. You have GOT to have made that assessment all on your lonesome.

Dean doesn't believe that and neither would Biden or Lugar.

[aquart]

96. Like the worthless Patriot Act.

And the prescription drug act.

And the energy bill

And...can anyone name a GOOD piece of legislation from BushCo?

[central scrutinizer]

14. take a page from the right

blame the President - after all, it is the one of the jobs of the executive branch to gather information. Congress does not have its own CIA so it has to rely upon the information it receives from the President. Many of them probably thought the administration was exaggerating the case for war but there was no way to know that the entire case was a lie made out of whole cloth.

[hickman1937]

16. I thought, in the hysteria following 9/11 they voted to give him the

authority to go to war if need be. I don't think anyone had the full measure of his evil at that point. It was supposed to be a show of unity in the face of an attack. The Dem's were wrong and should apologize, but bush should be impeached.

[tabasco]

21. Both of my Senators were smart enough to know ...

you don't hand a gun to a madman, even if you tell him to use it safely.

Those who were not wise enough to know this do not deserve a Democratic nomination.

[Panda1]

22. Hysteria is right

They (ALL members of Congress) were given false information by the Bush misadministration and told they were "with the terrorists" if they didn't support giving Liebody the authority to go to war to avenge the deaths on 9/11. Draped in OUR flag, the neocons pushed and pushed their agenda.
Senators and Congresspeople were told to be "careful" about what they said in public. Anthrax was already flying around....nobody caught yet for that scare tactic.
Think back. There was nothing but nationalistic fervor and rage. To speak out against war at that time was seen as unpatriotic in the extreme. Same tactics used by Hitler. They work. That's why Chimp and the neocons used them again.
WE were called a "focus group" because we protested. Flags dangled off every other car I saw. The neocons told us that the only way to protect ourselves was to trust them and go with their plan to fight terrorists "there" and not "here". The public, (many of them) STILL believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

This is a distraction from the FACTS: The Bush thugs LIED. They should be impeached. They continue to LIE. The MSM is totally complicit in the deceit.
Why now single out Democrats who voted based on the best information they were given at the time? All the Republicans voted FOR the IWR too. Why not cast aspersions on THEM for a change? We might have some milquetoast Democrats in our party but the Republicans deserve the blame for all of this. They have had all the power for years now. When do THEY finally get the blame for all the fucked things they've done to us? This is bullshit.

[MindPilot]

40. Yes, but...please check my post #27.

Your point is of course valid; the Republicans lied and totally supported the administration in their lies. But a majority of the Democrats did too; they failed to represent us as the opposition party. The Dems should've known, they should've questioned. Anyone who is outsmarted by the "most brilliant man" Harriet Miers has ever known should be hanging their head in shame.

I doubt if we can count on the same people who have been unwilling to challenge the Bush lies for the past five years to suddenly become paragons of honesty.

[Panda1]

46. Agreed, MP. Up to a point.

While I'm still pissed off at Democrats who voted for the IWR (and the PA) I'd rather go after the Ripoff Repukes first. Once we oust those Nazis who walk in total lockstep with the neocons, THEN we can clean up our own DNC/DLC. We've got Dean in there making a start.
I just think it's a mistake to focus on punishing Democrats first.
Unless we get better numbers in the House, we can't impeach. Unless we get better numbers in the Senate we'll have a third or fourth SC theojudge rammed down our throats.

You said: As I've said many times before, anybody with two brain cells and a modem knew there were no WMDs, knew what would happen if Bush was granted the powers to go to war, and knew the "evidence" was fabricated.

Now if tens of thousands--maybe even millions--of nobodies like me can figure that out, I sure as hell ain't buying it from somebody in the House or Senate.

Fear is a great motivator. Anthrax? Ruin by Rove? Yes, they were chickenshits but some of them wanted to believe that the thugs weren't lying...as did much of the public. We were in the minority then...WE were pointing out the lies but NOBODY was listening to us. The media made sure of that. At the time, it would have been political suicide for some of them to vote no. We could have lost more seats.

If any of the pro-war Democrats can tell me honestly why they thought it was a good idea at the time, and can now admit it was a really stupid decision, they might have a fighting chance. But if not, well those seats should be occupied by someone who actually represents the voters.

The way I see that is...any weakness we show with our incumbents will lead to more Republican seats. Hell, if WE don't support them they're dead meat. They're history and we'll have even MORE pukes in power. Can't we just push the "we were all lied to by BUSH" message? The public can understand that simple concept. (Maybe)
Why can't we attack the lockstep repukes first?
Make the REAL warmonger profiteers, the Republican Party, say they're sorry.
Or, we could continue to beat the shit out of the few remaining Democrats we have left, FORCE them to publicly apologize and give more fodder to the right wing media, and just sign up for total defeat in 2006. An apology is seen as weakness and flip flopping and I sure got sick to death of that meme.
I'll continue to bash pukes. THEY LIED...we were misled and our "leadership" was marginalized.
And as you know, I'm not one to praise the rotten and weak caving of which our Democrats are guilty...but now isn't the time to further weaken them. IMO.

[hickman1937]

89. Could I also point out that the supposedly accurate polls had bush

at an 80 percent approval rating? I think the whole polling industry needs to be investigated. How the hell was the average Dem rep or senator supposed know what the hell their constituency thought. It wasn't like they were given a lot of time to come up with financing for their own polls. This is divide and conquer crap, and I'm not buying into it.

[sasquatch]

17. That's our pink tutu democrats for sure

Stab Bill Clinton in the back while falling on their knees for Bush.

[yurbud]

18. If Joe Biden were on fire, I would not piss on him....

Okay, I would piss on him.

But not when he was on fire.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

161. that is too good for him

maybe something more of a solid substance, kinda like
Mr. Hanky.

[nickgutierrez]

19. The resolution was not a vote for war, Las Vegas Sun.

It was a resolution threatening the use of force should certain conditions arise.

Those conditions did not arise, but * went to war anyway - only accenting the illegality of the current Iraqi conflict.

[Larkspur]

36. IWR was a carte blanche for Bush to launch war against Iraq

IWR said that the President had to return to Congres within 48 hours AFTER launching military combat against Iraq. IWR did not allow Congress to stop Bush BEFORE he launched war.

The Biden-Lugar amendment, which was rejected by Congress, would have forced Bush to come to Congres BEFORE he could have launched war.

[nickgutierrez]

43. Section 2 of IWR required the President to go through the Security Council

I don't think a carte blanche for war would have provided such explicit support for diplomatic efforts:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) 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.

I don't like that Dems voted for IWR either - but they believed that the President wouldn't lie to them, and that this resolution bound him to going through the Security Council, which he never did.

[Larkspur]

90. And Bush took his lies to the UN Security Council and made a mockery

of it. When the UN Security Council didn't do what he wanted, Bush still ended up launching the war, and Congress had no further control over him.

The Dems had evidence that the Bush Admin was going to use the Iraq war as a campaign issue. Andy Card referred to the war as a product and the PR campaign as a marketing ploy to sell that product. The Dems also had the Repuke laptop with the Repukes secret 2002 campaign plans on it. The Iraq War was the centerpiece of their 2002 congressional campaign plans. The Repukes showed that they were willing to sacrifice American troops for lies and the Dems who voted for IWR condoned that policy.

[sampsonblk]

164. I Don't Accept This

...because this was the point at which those who voted for the IWR should have cried foul - from the top of their lungs. But they didn't. So they have no call to hide behind this passage you cited, not at this late stage.

They could have at least complained. But they did nothing.

[paulk]

47. it doesn't matter

the IWR makes a good tool to bash Democrats with and that's good enough for many posters here at Hate Democrats Underground.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

75. feel better now?

;-)

[Le Taz Hot]

77. Never mess with a

paramenapausal bleeding-heart, bed wetting "librul."

:hippie:

LTH<---(Mumbling, "tell ME I've got to goose-step to the party line"...)

[NVMojo]

57. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN AP STORY!! NOT WRITTEN BY THE LV SUN!

[Vinca]

20. I think the Dems need to simplify this issue for the voters.

Rather than parse "war" vs. "invasion," they should say they believed what they were told by the Bush administration and voted accordingly. Then they should make it clear that if they had known the information was false, they would have voted differently. If asked whether they regret their vote they should honestly say "yes," not tap dance around the question. Then they should tell the voters how the hell we're going to get out of Bush's mess.

[Panda1]

26. Exactly. We were ALL lied to.

The public was lied to, all of the Senate and the House...LIED TO.
Time to hold the Bush people responsible for LIES that brought about the IWR vote. WE didn't believe those lies but we were in the minority at the time. The climate of fear created by the neocons caused that vote. LIES worked.
Put the blame squarely where it belongs...on the LYING White House occupants.

[Tesha]

28. Not all of us believed the lies, however. (NT)

[Panda1]

34. Right

As I said above:
WE didn't believe those lies but we were in the minority at the time.

[0rganism]

25. but not Republicans, because their base loves killing brown people

Until this shit comes around to bite the "war party" in the ass, they will do it over and over and over and over again.

[nolabels]

119. All the debate is mute with DIEBOLD and a complicit corporate media

It may be that one head of the hydra down but watch the the back side. Make sure another doesn't come around the rear for a bite.

They right wing has spent years trying to set things up in their favor, dumping bushco and a pub congress person or two is not beyond them.

If that would keep favor in the pub camp you can be sure some will try to do it. New and different is not always better at any rate, would you want to trade Newt for Delay? (They did that didn't they?)

[Tippy]

30. While we here on DU did not agree with going to war.....

Many of us voted for Kerry, and others in Congress who fell for the Bush LIES...I think the best way to get around this issue is toss it right back at the Rethugs......"We were Patriotic, no one though the President of the United States would really LIE to Americans....but He did and look how many lives have been lost...Now I regret my decision to back the President, but it will remain forever a dark spot on my soul, and beg for forgivness.." sure would be a lot more effective it seems to me...

[confludemocrat]

41. "...get around this issue..."? yeah, dodge and strategize all you want,

these people cannot wash the blood from their hands.

[Larkspur]

42. The pro-war Dems have the problem that two thirds of the Congressional

Dems voted AGAINST IWR. The prominent Dems who voted FOR it all had presidential ambitions, either for 2004 or 2008. There was plenty of evidence that Bush was lying. Nancy Pelosi voted AGAINST IWR and she sat on the House's Intelligence Committee, so the pro-war Dems voted based on their presidential ambitions or because they were warmongers at heart. Lieberman pushed for it because of his Likkud connections and he believed convicted embezzler, Ahmad Chalabi, who sold the tale that a Saddam-free Iraq would be pro-Israel and pro-American. What a sucker, Lieberman will be remembered for in this ordeal.

[killbotfactory]

48. i want mea culpa's, and i want them now

these pro-war bastards screwed the democratic party because they were too chickenshit to stand up against Bush, or just as corrupt as he is.

[goforit]

50. We can't let any of these back-stabbing babykillers run or win!!!

[savemefromdumbya]

55. The climate at the time

the climate was for the war then and Democrats had to appeal to voters. Now opinion is against the war so Democrats have to find ways to appeal? In hindsight Howard Dean was right

[6000eliot]

58. This was why my support for Kerry wasn't stronger in 2004.

[Emillereid]

62. Let's make sure that AL GORE gets his rightful turn in the oval office --

he's not compromised by the 'idiotic' pro-war vote to give the boy-king the authority to go to war in Iraq (yeah, I know they 'technically' didn't give him the authority, etc., but it was all he needed (as we poor peons knew all along as we begged our democrats not to vote for the damn resolution!)). More than the stupidity of their vote to go to war -- their votes represent complete moral blindness and cowardice at its worst!

DRAFT AL GORE!

[confludemocrat]

71. I agree, he is not tainted in so terminal a way as this bunch (not Kucin

ich, of course who was the only one and is still the only one along with Sharpton who has opposed the war right down the line).

[Orion The Hunter]

67. This just in:

The sky is still blue and water is still wet; this is not news.

[Sterling]

68. No Shit?

It's hurt them with me. They get no support from me period. I can't see anyone wanting to vote for anyone who had anything to do with Iraq when all is said and done.

[OKthatsIT]

72. NO DUH

[JNelson6563]

73. Yes, we nobodies on DU knew what they didn't

for that alone they should pay.

Juile

[VegasWolf]

76. They damn well should. They should haunt them all the way to hell! nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

78. They were skeeerd of looking like appeasers and "unpatriotic"

instead, they all look "idiotic". They failed us all at a time when they were supposed to be trusted. Fuck the whole lot of them.

[madmark]

79. It should haunt them; The vote either renders them incompetent

(any critical thinker knew all the rationales for the war were bs at the time of the vote), or complicit (they knew the rationale was bs but voted for it anyway because they thought it was politically expediant). And that ultimately was what nailed Kerry in the last election. He could not go after Bush for starting the bs war as hard as should have because doing so highlighted his own incompetence or complicitness with that vote.

[callady]

80. I guess I don't understand the naivete or is it

unwillingness to fully examine the historical record and admit to how dirty hands are at the top of the Pyramid. Start with what Clinton was responsible for during his administration regarding sanctions in Iraq.

Clinton laid siege to Iraq with sanctions, "no fly zones" and bombings, killing 1.5 to 3 million people. While the numbers can be disputed the tragedy is a material fact.  UN-approved sanctions on Iraq were originally imposed at the start of the Gulf War in response to the invasion of Kuwait, but continued after the end of the war at US (and UK) insistence.  The United States used sanctions as a weapon against Iraq.  One military intelligence document titled Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities noted:

"Iraq depends on importing-specialized equipment-and some chemicals to purify its water supply ... With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations sanctions to import these vital commodities. ... Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease and to certain pure-water-dependent industries becoming incapacitated, including petrochemicals, fertilizers, petroleum refining, electronics, pharmaceuticals, food processing, textiles, concrete construction, and thermal power plants.  Iraq’s overall water treatment capability will suffer a slow decline, rather than a precipitous halt ... Unless water treatment supplies are exempted from the UN sanctions for humanitarian reasons, no adequate solution exists for Iraq’s water purification dilemma, since no suitable alternatives ... sufficiently meet Iraqi needs. ... Unless the water is purified with chlorine epidemics of such diseases as Cholera, Hepatitis, and Typhoid could occur ... Iraq could try convincing the United Nations or individual countries to exempt water treatment supplies from sanctions for humanitarian reasons. It probably also is attempting to purchase supplies by using some sympathetic countries as fronts. If such attempts fail, Iraqi alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements. ... Some affluent Iraqis could obtain their own minimally adequate supply of good quality water from northern Iraqi sources. If boiled, the water could be safely consumed. Poorer Iraqis and industries requiring large quantities of pure water would not be able to meet their needs. ... Alternatives are not adequate for their national requirements."

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html

And just for the record look into these words from LBJ when Greece had the nerve to question the preeminence of the US:

"Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution.  America is an elephant.  Cyprus is a flea.  If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good.  ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador.  If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Greece_KH.html

Remember the words of Madeleine Albright who said "I think it was worth it" referring to the million or more deaths attributed to the sanctions in Iraq. So it seems when it comes to asserting dominance and securing energy sources and corridors there is a consistency here.

[Chicago Democrat]

85. Bayh-Biden-Clinton-Kerry have no chance

no chance

Unless they repudiate their vote somehow. How about "I was lied to" as a start.

[JohnnyCougar]

92. I'll tell you who DIDN'T vote for IWR...

Mr. Russell Feingold.

Thank you, and vote Feingold in '08.

[EST]

93. Point made.

[IndianaGreen]

108. Dennis Kucinich did not vote for IWR either!

and Dennis fought hard against the war during Campaign 2004.

[Fluffdaddy]

95. You guys can always throw away your vote on the Green party in 06 & 08

[JohnnyCougar]

97. No need to...just vote for Feingold.

A progressive Dem who voted against the PATRIOT ACT, against the war, and against the bankrupcy bill, yet still can garner Republican, centrist, and progressive votes.

[IndianaGreen]

But Russ doesn't have rows of military campaign ribbons!

You know how some people are mesmerized by military uniforms!

[IndianaGreen]

109. I won't vote for a prowar or an anti-choice or anti-LGBT candidate!

I don't care how many "D" follow his/her name.

[Fluffdaddy]

135. Then I hope you will be happy living under the Neo-Cons rule 8 more year

I will never understand people that will happily Cut off their nose to...... oh hell you know the rest

[IndianaGreen]

151. Enjoy your heterosexual bigotry!

I will never vote for a candidate that is prowar, or anti-choice, or anti-LGBT!

[Fluffdaddy]

163. "Enjoy your heterosexual bigotry" You Lost me with that comment

[Seabiscuit]

98. It was a "threshold issue" for me in 2002-2003. That's why Howard Dean

got my vote in the primaries.

No Dem who voted for the IWR should get one vote from anyone on DU in the primaries for the 2008 election.

[blm]

145. And if Biden-Lugar version of the IWR had passed who would you vote for?

Because Dean supported the B-L version of the IWR and the final IWR was not significantly different than the B-L. in any way that would have stopped Bush from invading.

[Seabiscuit]

168. I wasn't aware of that. But perhaps in researching it, all one would find

was that if the Senate was going to pass the IWR anyway it would be better to have it with the B-L amendment.

In his campaign he was consistently AGAINST the IWR and consistently AGAINST the invasion of Iraq..

[blm]

169. IWR was against invasion UNLESS weapons inspections proved it necessary

and unavoidable.

That's why Bush should be impeached. The DSM inquiry would prove that they were going into Iraq even to the point of fixing the intel evidence.

B-L was the better bill, but the Dems did get weapons inspections into the IWR and the letter that B-L required the day of invasion was changed to a 48 hr window in the IWR.

Some folks claim that B-L didn't require regime change, but conveniently forget that regime change was already a part of US policy and had been so since 1998.....something even Dennis Kucinich voted for at the time....so it was unnecessary to add it.

[Seabiscuit]

171. The most important problem with the IWR, which Byrd, Dean and others

pointed out all along was that it ceded Congress' power to declare war to the executive. Sure, there were conditions attached, but those conditions were by nature unenforceable against the executive, so Bush could and did violate them with impunity. Had the IWR never passed, Bush never would have had that opportunity - he would have had to go to Congress to obtain a declaration of war, which Congress likely would never have given him, in view of the fact that the U.N. weapons inspections disclosed no WMDs and no threat whatsoever to the U.S. from Iraq.

That's what's really wrong with the IWR, and that's why Dean throughout his campaign referred to those who voted for it (a minority of House dems but a majority of Senate dems) as "spineless beltwary dems".

[blm]

172. So did B-L, so in Dean's case it was a dodge and a contradiction. The

media never caught him in his prior support for B-L and that is how Gephardt tripped him up in the Iowa debate. Dean fumbled that one badly as if he never expected to get caught.

BTW...even without the IWR, Bush was going to invade using the original 1991 UN res. which actually gave him a better legal leg to stand on, but Rove wanted to use IWR to divide the Dems before 2002,4 elections.

That would have meant NO weapons inspections and NO letter. The iWR turns out to be the better choice for the historic record of Bush's malfeasance inre to this invasion.

[Seabiscuit]

173. You keep trying to discredit Dean with your B-L allegations. Why?

Can't you simply acknowledge the simple truth of the matter that Dean consistently came out against the IWR as a whole during his campaign???

As for Bush invading simply by using the 1991 UN resolution, that's crap. That gave Bush absolutely NO authority to invade, as a German court has recently ruled as a matter of international law. And as the Constitution requires the US to honor its treaties, including such international law, it would have been unconstitutional both for that reason and because Congress hadn't declared war.

The whole point of Bush and Blair deciding Bush needed the IWR and then UN inspections (they miscalculated, thinking Saddam would refuse to allow the UN inspectors back in) was because both governments acknowledged that the U.S. could NOT rely on prior UN resolutions as a matter of law to support their planned invasion.

Bush did NOT need the IWR to approach the UN about renewed inspections in Iraq. That's another right-wing crap line.

Face it. Without all the deceptions surrounding the IWR Bush could NEVER have convinced Congress to declare war on Iraq. If Bush violated the Constitution by invading any way, Congress would have cut any funding for it, nipping it in the bud, under its power of the purse under the constitution.

I think you're pretty mixed up about all this and your posts are really muddying the waters in a way the neocons would undoubtedly appreciate.

[blm]

178. I'm not. But your version is inaccurate. Dean never came out forcefully

against the IWR before the vote, and didn't talk much about his support for B-L over the IWR in the couple months following or state there was any significant difference. It wasn't until after the anti-war demonstrations and the energy coming from the left that he shifted left himself for the primaries. Prior to that time he was basically running as the pragmatic centrist in the field.

You can see with a little research that Dean didn't vocally protest the IWR much until a few months after the vote.

As far as the UN res., I think you're confusing the 1991 res with the UN res from Powell's testimony where they also wanted Bush to return to the UN which Bush eventually refused to do. Britain very much wanted to go in with the 1991 UN res. and NOT get involved in the political campaign games of the Bush WH.


It would be interesting to see exactly where you think I am mixed up about this. I have a photographic memory that wasn't too damaged in the Northridge earthquake.

You are also mistaking my references to Dean and B-L. I am holding to an accurate account of Dean's support for B-L and its proximity to the final version of IWR. You can check the media accounts, but you will rarely see that B-L is even mentioned by Dean or the media in their account of his antiwar stance.

This is exactly what politicians do when they're in a primary race. Dean and Kerry's campaign teams both exaggerated their differences on the war exactly because their actual differences weren't that great.

They both opposed the invasion because the weapons inspections were working and both said Bush didn't prove war was unavoidable.

Sorry if you feel pointing out Dean's support of B-L is an attack on him. But, you can imagine that it strikes me as odd that many of his supporters still become surprised to even KNOW that he supported a version of the IWR that was actually very close to the one that passed. He certainly knew at the time that he was lucky the media never called him on it.

Had he become the nominee, you can bet that Karl had everything he said prior to and during the time of the IWR vote on file.

[Seabiscuit]

180. I never said Dean came out against the IWR "before the vote"

That, and the rest of your post are nothing but phony straw men that you're knocking down.

I worked on the Dean campaign and contributed the max to it.

Don't tell me Dean wasn't against the IWR and the invasion. And don't distort my words by talking about what happened before the IWR was passed. He wasn't a U.S. Senator about to vote on it - he began his criticisms after it was passed in its final form.

You say: "You can see with a little research that Dean didn't vocally protest the IWR much until a few months after the vote." I don't need to do any research. I worked on his campaign. The reason he didn't protest the IWR publicly until a few months after the vote is because he didn't begin his campaign until a few months after the vote. Once he began his campaign and began making public statements related to his campaign, he began slamming the IWR. Just look at your straw men and hyperbole.

You say: "As far as the UN res., I think you're confusing the 1991 res with the UN res from Powell's testimony where they also wanted Bush to return to the UN which Bush eventually refused to do. Britain very much wanted to go in with the 1991 UN res. and NOT get involved in the political campaign games of the Bush WH."

No, I'm NOT confusing anything. I'm talking about the 1991 UN resolution, not Resolution 1441. And you're wrong about Britain. Do some research of your own, beginning with the recently decided German court case: http://www.asiantribune.com/show_article.php?id=2726 <"In particular, the United States had no legal basis for attacking Iraq based on previous UN resolutions that it itself had introduced. UN Resolution 678 in 1990 had only authorised the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. The ceasefire Resolution 687 in 1991 certified that this aim had been realised. This resolution also threatened Iraq with “serious consequences” if it used poisonous gasses or other biological weapons and renewed the demand for Iraq to maintain a clear distance from “international terrorism.” This resolution was accepted by Iraq. The court stated that UN Resolution 707 in 1991 did not revoke the ceasefire nor has it since been repealed. No subsequent resolution contained a justification for military operations, not even in relation to forcing Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors.">

I also think it's high time you document and clarify your allegations against Dean regarding the B-L amendment. By now your position is becoming unintelligible. If you don't understand the enormous differences between Dean's and Kerry's positions on the IWR and the war, you really never paid much attention during the primaries.

[blm]

181. Well, point out the SIGNIFICANT differences between B-L and IWR that would

have prevented war.

Or are you trying to claim that Dean didn't support B-L and are charging me with making it up?

[Seabiscuit]

182. Why can't you just respond directly without obfuscating

and questioning my motives in stating, as I clearly did:

"I also think it's high time you document and clarify your allegations against Dean regarding the B-L amendment. By now your position is becoming unintelligible. If you don't understand the enormous differences between Dean's and Kerry's positions on the IWR and the war, you really never paid much attention during the primaries."

[blm]

183. That's not clear. Do you not know the similarities of B-L and IWR and want

an explanation or are you saying that there WAS significant difference between the B-L and IWR and that difference constitutes the "enormous difference" between Dean's and Kerry's positions" as you claim?

[Seabiscuit]

184. It's perfectly clear.

I want you to document and clarify your contentions about B-L re: Dean. Period. You've made quite a variety of claims about it all, and it's gotten confused and confusing.

Again, perhaps in words simple enough they cannot confuse you:

1. State your claims about Dean in relation to B-L.

2. Document said claims.

In the meantime, quit trying to distract from this by trying to read my mind. My opinion is not the issue. The issue is your claims.

[blm]

187. Here's an analysis from Oliphant on IWR and B-L and Dean's support for it.

A pretty long piece but may provide a clearer explanantion for you.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/11/23/deans_negative_tilt_in_iowa/

>>>>>>>>>
As the facts show, Gephardt was no more for war than Dean was; the facts show that each of them was basically in favor of the same thing, namely bringing matters with Iraq to a climactic head. Here is what actually happened. Bush proposed a pure, blank-check resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq in September 2002. Many in Congress, Gephardt included, opposed it. Negotiations ensued, alternatives were proposed, and a month later many Democrats and nearly all Republicans agreed with Bush on a second resolution which passed overwhelmingly.

One of those alternatives -- offered by the top men on the Senate Foreign Relations, Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware and Republican Dick Lugar of Indiana -- authorized the use of force after a new UN resolution requiring Iraqi disarmament and compliance with past resolution; if UN diplomacy was exhausted it authorized unilateral action if the president declared Iraq a threat.

This alternative was not only supported by Howard Dean, it was supported by Senator John Kerry, whom Dean also attacks for being Bush's war buddy.

Lacking votes, the Biden-Lugar proposal was never formally introduced. Instead, the negotiations with Democrats produced the resolution that passed. It authorized force for several other offenses beyond prohibited weapons (including ballistic missiles, which Iraq had), but also encouraged UN involvement. The differences between the two were not huge, and each authorized war, including unilateral war.

After the vote, Dean reiterated his Biden-Lugar position but did not denounce the enacted resolution until later. He also said Bush should be taken at his word that Iraq constituted a threat.

As a result of Congress's resolution, the Bush administration went to New York and secured unanimous Security Council passage of a new resolution demanding new inspections and threatening serious consequences for disobedience. At that point the world was essentially united and so was the United States.

Against that background, Bush could have gone to war just as easily under Biden-Lugar as under the actual congressional resolution.

>>>>>>>>>

[Seabiscuit]

190. OK, before I respond further, let me be certain about your post:

In response to my pointed questions about stating your claims and documenting them you offer one two-year old opinion piece from the Boston Globe from an obvious Gephardt supporter. Opinion pieces are not what I consider factual documentation but it appears that's your answer.

So before going further, let me just be sure about this:

Is that your entire answer? Or is there more? If there is more, please post it and discuss it.

[blm]

191. If you would PLEASE CLARIFY...What is the sticking point for you? Is it

that you disagree that Dean ever supported B-L? I can search for more news articles about that.

You say that Kerry and Dean were enormously different on the IWR and said I wasn't paying attention....well...OK....then WHAT in the B-L bill that Dean supported was enormously different than the final version of IWR that Kerry voted for? I am assuming here you are familiar with the similarities and the differences, though you haven't indicated yet whether you are or not.


If you can tell me what factual documentation you are looking for, that would help. Do you want the text of each bill?

BTW...Oliphant is a highly respected political analyst. He's a staunch lefty and endorsed no one in the primary. If you disagree with his analysis, perhaps you can explain where he lied or gave incorrect information.

[Seabiscuit]

199. I thought my questions were crystal clear.

You've made numerous allegations about Dean and B-L. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone make such allegations.

Tell you what. Why don't you review your posts to me in this thread and note every statement you made connecting Dean and B-L and the inferences you've drawn about it all. Then try to think where you got that information/those ideas. Then try to search for some public record supporting it all.

You can begin by citing to a site quoting Dean talking about B-L. I personally don't know of any, but feel free to enlighten me. Also, any link to the proposed B-L amendment to the IWR would also be helpful - so I can read exactly what it says.

If I don't get back to you for a day or so I'm not ignoring you - I just won't have much time, if any, to spend on DU for awhile. I am interested in exploring this subject further with you.

Eventually I'll read and comment on the article you cited. I merely skimmed it the first time around. Just enough to notice Oliphant is taking Gephardt's side in the battle of the ads in Iowa (which neither candidate should have participated in, IMHO - it damaged both of them).

[Hekate]

102. I should hope to shout. I want them to admit they fell for a lie

We were all lied to, and a lot of Americans who aren't in politics believed those lies.

I can be forgiving of Democratic politicians -- but I want an admission that they were taken in, and I want a shame-faced apology to us, followed by some righteous anger aimed at Bushco. They should stop trying to defend their pro-war votes and concentrate on finding and publishing the truth.

Hekate

[rfkrfk]

104. a campaign slogan of... I am an idiot ...is not going to work

a better slogan would be ...
I am only lying to you about my IWR vote.

[second edition]

105. Ridiculous assumptions in this article.

A majority of Americans supported the war and their representitive's votes back when this was voted on. It was a small minority that was greatly apposed. I don't think the public at large will be so inclined as to blame them for something they supported at the same time. Besides, the election is three years away. A lot of things can change in that period of time and it just might be that the war will not be as big an issue by that time- who knows- with the push to get out now and a call for a timetable- we may not even be involved to a large extent in Iraq.

[tinrobot]

110. The bigger issue: None have admitted their mistake

Voting for the war was wrong, we all know that.

Not admitting the mistake, especially at this point, is even worse.

If one of them were to come out against the war and admit their mistake, I could become a supporter. Until then, I'll find someone else.

[second edition]

112. Actually, I don't think it was a mistake as much as being lied to

by this administration. The administration lied to Congress and to the American people about the premise for this war. Where's the outrage over these lies.

[expatriot]

111. allowed him to use force... IF Saddam didn't allow UN back in. nt

[philly_bob]

113. Judge them on Bankruptcy, Energy

I say give them a pass on the Iraq vote, because they were lied to, by White House, Miller, et al. I remember being told that Iraq could deliver nuclear warheads with 24 hours notice. I always used the allegedly "liberal" NY Times as my counterweight to right wing propaganda -- but in this case both agreed.

So give Dems a pass on that Iraq vote -- but hold their feet to the fire on the bankruptcy bill and the energy pork bill.

[madmark]

200. If they really were duped then they are incompetent and not fit

for their current positions let alone president.

[tuvor]

114. Gephardt on Iraq: "I was wrong"

Someone seems to be preparing to run.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/gephardt_on_ira.html

[Tight_rope]

116. I knew the minute after I saw the second plane crash into the....

building that the US should not retaliate. Anyone with the mind set and cruel enough to think up and even carry out that kind of plan should not be messed with. But having had the chimp as my governor I knew he was a cocky sonuvabitch that would go after whoever he thought might have done it.

So yes I was against the War in Iraq. I will "ALWAYS" be against any war. Going to war never solves the problem. If anything all it does is kill more innocent victims.

In Truth, "WAR IS SIMPLY AN EXTENSION OF POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS"!

So yes I will be and am very critical of those who voted to let that fucker kill so many innocent people for nothing.

[robbedvoter]

117. As it should have in 2004 as well (we had 2 pro-war voters on the ticket)

Somewhere in my archive I have an almost identical article from 2003....

[Bridget Burke]

118. I want to punish the Republicans first.

Or, gosh, let's all vote 3rd party.

My Rep is Sheila Jackson Lee, who voted NAY. The less said about my Republican dumbass senators, the better.

[JerseygirlCT]

120. The "pro-war" is only part of it

there's also the "very stupid to ever trust George Bush" part that I never understood.

My assumption was that for some of them, personal integrity meant they couldn't really imagine what an evil man Bush is, or that he'd lie so blatantly. But really, we had enough evidence even then that he was never to be trusted, didn't we?

I continue to believe that Kerry made a huge mistake by not just fessing up to his mistake by saying: yeah, how foolish of me. I took the president of the US at his word. Now we see how much that is worth.

[Individualist]

123. Same here

Bloody George's character was so well known before he was selected by SCOTUS that anyone who says he "trusted the president" is, IMO, a fool or a liar.

[Pacifist Patriot]

127. I cannot give these candidates an "out" because they were misled.

The problem I have with the vote has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the intelligence, the persuasiveness of the executive branch or the climate of fear after 9/11.

They may not have voted to go to war or to invade another country (splitting semantic hairs there), but they voted to give that authority to the executive branch. In my lay opinion, what they did was contrary to the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.

If they wanted to act in good conscience they'd have maintained war powers with the legislative branch instead of the executive.

A constitutional expert will have to explain why I'm wrong if that is the case.

[laureloak]

129. Democrats going after Democrats? Why?

Careful guys.

[second edition]

130. Exactly, they provide an outrageous statement -we provide them

with the entertainment.

[electron_blue]

131. Yes, be careful, but I'd also like to know why they voted yes in the

first place.

To me, it looked like totally false reasons to go to war with Iraq in the first place. I always saw through it. Okay, so maybe I'm just a super-genius with impressive insight, but I highly doubt it. I think it's more likely that many politicians (Dem & Rep alike) were unconvinced, but voted yes anyway.

How different would our world be today had those who were unconvinced stood their ground and stood up to Bush?

[november3rd]

132. What are they saying now?

The Iraq War Resolution is old news. Maybe some of them learned their lesson. I don't think so, though.

Look at where Bayh, Kerry, Clinton and Biden stand on Health Care, Bankruptcy, Taxes, Military Spending, Agriculture, Corporate Welfare, Media Conglomeration, etc...

For the most part, they're GOP-lite. They do not enunciate a clear, forward-looking position on any issue that is important to the Democratic base and the movements we support.

Therefore, they should all get left behind.

Edwards is a little different, but he strikes me as being willing to move to the center. I don't really trust him.

The party doesn't need or want another George McGovern, but we need someone who can lead the party and the country.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2354/

[Doctor_J]

133. Not unless some anti-war candidates run against them

:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

134. They gave Bush...Bush! authority to go to war?!???

Man, that was at least as bad as Bush's crime.

Bush is a fool, but we all knew that before he took the oath of office.

For those democrats to entrust him with the decision to go to war was inexcusable in the extreme.

Not to mention that it is unconstitutional (Remember the Constitution?) to give the President authority to go to war, that is a decision that can only be made by Congress.

These same Democrats are leading the charge for a "better managed" war.
Politically speaking, let them rot ....

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

136. I hope it haunts every single one of them to their graves

Of course, being politicians, they all lack a genuine conscience, so it won't end up bothering them. But I can still hope....

[Jacobin]

137. Many here at DU WARNED them by fax, email and phone calls

Many didn't listen.

I was most disappointed in Kerry's vote, since he personally saw the consequences of the last Viet Nam

[laureloak]

138. The majority of Americans can see beyond this spin.

No matter how much those stuck in the 2004 primaries resurect it.

[Robbins]

141. Democrats

All they need to do Is say the magic words "I was wrong" Inless that
happens I will only consider supporting Feingold,Clark,or possibly
Richardson or Warner. Of course If Gore runs I will support him.

[eagler]

140. The alternative to not voting for the democrats is

MORE RULE BY REPUBLICANS ! Wake up people. We always wind up defeating ourselves.There is much wisdom in hindsight.

[The Backlash Cometh]

142. They have one chance in hell to pull this through:

Fitzgerald is going to paint an administration which was willful and criminally intent on deceiving EVERYONE in order to go to war. The WHIGS were determined to fool everyone INCLUDING Congress. If Congress gets together, and that means Republicans AND Democrats, in order to unanimously agree that their trust was betrayed, they may have a chance. But it means skewering the Bush Administration in a way that no presidency has been skewered since Watergate.

[4_TN_TITANS]

149. B. S. Propoganda....

This article is simply bullshit, trying to get us to do what we do best - turn on our own.

I'm profoundly more informed than I was back before the IWR (thanks to DU) but I was suckered by the MSM and lies as well. Even to the point of giving a reluctant nod for war. I was wrong, but based on what we were being told, and the public wave of support, it seemed a somewhat right course at the time.

[truthisfreedom]

150. pshaww. i don't believe it for one second. we all know they were duped.

the war was a fraud perpetrated upon the entire nation... the congressional votes for the war were a result of lies by the administration.

[Orsino]

152. Yeah? The families of the dead will be haunted for a LOT longer.

All the cowards deserve lifetimes of sleepless nights.

[ContraBass Black]

154. It damn well better haunt them.

I wasn't fooled.

[lovuian]

155. Ya the DLC is traitors and remember the Bush Kiss of lieberman

The Judas Kiss!!!

The Kiss of Alliance!!! These are the same Democrats wanting a DRAFT!!!

they will never be PRESIDENT!!!

[goforit]

158. Ahhh yes !!!!...Good old Lieberman, The quiet Bush schmucK supporter.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

160. they have internet too, they have no excuse

They had even more information than we had, and they signed the death warrent of thousands of Iraqis and US citizens.

It takes wisdom to oppose war, and these jokers either didn't have it or played the game to get what they wanted.

[Jackpine Radical]

162. Permit me to say two words: RUSS FEINGOLD.

[makeanoise]

175. AMEN

Right there with you.....

[robbedvoter]

185. 3 WORDS: Voted for Ashcroft!

Wes Clark.

[makeanoise]

174. Not Unless you are Sen. Russ Feingold

I'm telling you people, he's the best candidate you have got...no one can attack him for being wishy washy (No to IRAQ,No to Patriot Act) or inflexible (Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform bill)

He's your best choice....

[godai]

176. Fine with me...

I'm convinced that a Senator can't be elected. They'll Kerry-ize the voting record and all we'll hear is flipity flopity...

Not a lot of Senators have been elected President and even JFK was a close call. How about we accept that fact and look elsewhere.

Gov. Mark Warner and Mayor Martin O'Malley (later, after he's elected MD Guv) are good candidates for the future, without the Senatorial baggage.

[Dr Fate]

179. DEMs should trust the base rather than Bush & the media. n/t

n/t

[NVMojo]

188. A return to "grassroots" is needed badly ...

[maddezmom]

194. locking

this thread seems to have run it's natural course and isn't LBN anymore.

[anitar1]

201. Happy to say that my Rep did not vote for it. n/t