Bayh says vote for Iraq war would be different under new facts

[sabra]

http://www.wndu.com/news/122005/news_46308.php

Bayh says vote for Iraq war would be different under new facts

Senator Evan Bayh says he wouldn't have supported military action in Iraq if he knew then, what he knows now


Indiana - Senator Evan Bayh says he wouldn't have supported a resolution authorizing military action in Iraq if he knew then what he knows now.

He says some of the facts he relied on were inaccurate.

Bayh was among 77 senators who voted for a resolution in October
2002 that gave President Bush the power to use military force to enforce United Nations orders that Iraq dispose of its weapons of mass destruction. The House also approved the war resolution.

Bayh is an Indiana Democrat who has been testing the waters for a possible presidential run in 2008.

[skipos]

1. But is the DU going to bash him anyway?

Methinks yes.

[jsamuel]

4. and are you going to bash all of DU in one statement?

Methinks yes.

[still_one]

5. I won't attack him for recognizing the fraud

and I don't agree with painting DU or anyone with one brush as though group think is enforced on anyone here

This is NOT freeper land

Yes we have disagreements, and some views predominant, but we allow all views

[Moochy]

6. Right Bash at ya

I bash your stupid post bashing DU.

Poor widdo pro-war democrats are always getting picked on by the liberals who wield such immense congressional power. :eyes:

[skipos]

11. Ok, you guys don't think DUers attack and insult

many dem politicians who aren't calling for an immediate withdrawl. When DUers respond with "fuck that bitch," "traitor," etc when Clinton doesn't support immediate withdrawl, I don't consider that to be a debate, I consider that to be bashing. You guys disagree, that is your right.

[Moochy]

13. Making a blanket statement indicting all of DU

is pretty constructive too eh? I despise the framing of the pro-war vote as anything other than pure warmongering. We anti-war democrats knew then it was wrong, and we know it now. Those who voted for the war should be held accountable. And by accountable, I mean voted out of office if their constituency is so inclined (read: if the distinct is polling anti-war now) like the collaborating war-hawk neo-libs that they are.

How's that?

No bashing of anyone other than the politicians with their finger to the wind. No bashing of you or other DU's. I figure the Politicians have a thick skin or they wouldn't have gotten into the business in the first place, right?

I disagree that you think thats not a debate. 'Traitor' is a perfectly good definition of someone who betrays the trust of the people they were elected to represent. Again as you said, you have a right to disagree, but base it on facts, not some whiny indictment of all of DU. "don't bash my demorcrats because now they are finally coming around"

Mr Bayh doesn't represent me, I'll leave it to his own district's voters to determine if his turnaround is sufficient, and what price is the price of "taking responsibility for my vote" paraphrasing Hillary put it.

[cliss]

15. As I recall, millions of people

took a stand before the war in Iraq. There were so many demonstrations; articles said that it was the "largest peace rally in history".

Our family was one of them. We were 1,000% against going into Iraq. We were not the only ones.

And now? I don't feel proud that we knew how it was going to turn out. For those who change their minds and decide in the 11th hour that "it was a mistake", I say

Better late than never.

[skipos]

18. Yes, millions of people were ahead of the curve.

But you have to admit that most Americans were slower in recognizing how poorly organized, executed and rationalized this was is. I wish our dem representatives would always be ahead of the curve, but when someone admits they where wrong, or changes their mind, I will give them credit for doing something that most people, including our president, can't do.

[cliss]

21. I agree.

If Americans had been quicker to react, and not just take this Scumbag administration at its word, we might not be in Iraq.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Bayh has not changed his position on what we should do.

He has simply, along with the rest of the stay and die faction, rewritten how he 'would have acted'.

Ooops edited to make sense.

[skipos]

17. Explain how "fuck that bitch" is a debate and not a bash.

This:
"But is the DU going to bash him anyway?"
is not a blanket statement indicting all of DU. It is a question. I agree that I should have worded the question, "will some DUers bash him anyway?"

This:
"Methinks yes"
is an opinion. I am not positive that i will be right, so I wrote "methingks." Please note that there is no sarcasm or insults. I do not accuse anyone of being asking a stupid question, or being
"whiny" or anything else.

We are all on the same side here.
:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Well of course 'fuck that bitch'

is generally an aside and not a debate point. The same threads contain numerous well written essays pointing out the folly of the stay and die DLC corporate whore revised position on Iraq, version 3.7. But you know that, and you aren't interested in that debate.

[skipos]

23. How do you know I am not interested?

Please point out where you are able to come to that conclusion.

I know that there are PLENTY of well written articles and posts conveying different points of view in what we should be doing or not doing in Iraq.

I can do with out the insults.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Oh I am so sorry.

I thought when you started a thread with a deliberate insult to all of us here on DU that you did not intend anything other than a flame war, that you had no serious intention to engage in meaningful debate over the issues. My mistake.

[skipos]

25. Aah yes. Sarcasm.

This:
"But is the DU going to bash him anyway?"
was not an insult. It was a question I asked because I did't know.

This:
"Methinks yes"
was my opinion. An opinion that was proven wrong in the case of this thread.

We are all on the same side here. No reason to be sarcastic!
:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

26. WTF

You are kidding, right? Oh never mind. Here try this:

Are you in favor of unconditional withdrawal from Iraq?

[skipos]

27. I will answer anyone who asks politely.

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Oh please I am begging you. eom.

[skipos]

32. Sorry!

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Ah - thanks.

You seem to like doing your troll thing on those of us here who oppose stay and die democrats:


He lost MY vote! Oh, wait. I don't live in Chicago.

Another day, another dem for DU to tear apart.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1960982#1960989


And here you are defending Warner's stay and die position:

"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said.

to which you responded:
He said "focus more" not "only focus."
And I will take the minority DU opinion and agree with him.
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I don't expect to change anyone's mind. No debates from me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1952563&mesg_id=1953196

Always playing the poor under attack victim, aren't we?


And here is a concise statement by you on where you stand:


Warner has made comments like this before. Personally I agree with him.
The priority should be a plan that gets our troops out of there sooner than later. While I am not like many DUers who want our troops out immediately with no consideration to the damage we have done there and how Iraq will survive it, I would like our troops out as soon as possible, but feel we should give them some help to try and survive. Personally, I think something could done in a few weeks or months, but at some point we are going to have to cut our losses and just leave.

Judging Warner's previous comments on Iraq, I don't think we wants to nix all discussion of how we got there, I think he just wants to prioritize our exit.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2279497&mesg_id=2279589


Sort of a nuanced stay and dier. We shouldn't stick around killing iraqis for no good purpose indefinately.

Ok. Got it. Thanks for letting me know where you stand.

[skipos]

34. You don't need to thank me,

you are the one who put all that work into looking through my posts. You can do that anytime you want!
:hi:

[depakid]

9. Why would anyone attack?

except to say that he (and others) should have known better.

Would have been nice had Kerry said this in August of 2004 when it counted- but I'm sure he'll regret that for the rest of his life.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Damn right.

Corporate Whore Bayh is a stay and die DLC Democrat. Oh sure, now that the criminal enterprise in Iraq is unpopular he claims that he would have voted against 'if he knew then what we know now'. But he still wants to send our sons and daughters to die, and kill piles of Iraqis, and enrich the mercenary kleptocracy, until we get 'the job' done right.

You know what? I'm a freaking idiot with no access to any intelligence briefings and I knew that the nonsense they were peddling back in '02 and '03 was TOTAL BULLSHIT. I did of course read the PNAC documents where they said that toppling Saddam and occupying Iraq was Job Numero Uno in their public plan to rule the world by military force. I simply weighed TOTAL BULLSHIT against a REASONABLE EXPLANATION OF MOTIVE and zeroed right in on THE TRUTH. How fucking difficult was that?

Corporate Whore Bayh should stick to safe topics like banning ultra-violent video games. I wonder if he includes the US Army's ultra violent video game in his shit list?

[salin]

41. Bayh didn't just vote "yes" he, Lieberman and Gepbhart played

a special role.

In the days running up to the vote - there were a number of senators working on several amendments - republicans and dems together - that would attach strings to the vote - requirements limiting what power the WH could derive (Lugar, Hagel and Spector - were all involved in these efforts).

The day before the vote Bush holds a Rose Garden speech... with three democrats - two from the senate - claiming bipartisan support for the response (the war vote) to a dire danger. That evening - all of the efforts for various amendments in the senate collapsed.

Bayh didn't just vote for the resolution - he intentionally acted at the behest of the Bush WH in a way meant to end any discussion on any limits on the IWR in the senate. He tanked fellow democrats efforts, and fellow hoosier senator Lugar's efforts.

Bayh raising this claim doesn't get the same wash that some others do - given his particular action at the time.

While I didn't vote against him in the most recent election (he is my senator) - I would certainly would not back a primary run by this vacuous politician.

[kentuck]

2. The media should ask the Republicans the same question...

Has there been one Republican that has said they would have voted differently?

[sabra]

3. Rummy said, he would still attack.

Said last week in the George S. i-view.

[babylonsister]

7. Bingo, kentuck. Anyone with a brain and the facts-finally-

who thinks this was a good idea is delusional, and that includes repugs.

[still_one]

8. the public should ask the media if they

helped push this war

[nickshepDEM]

10. He's running. I wish him the best too.

He would make a fine president.

[truthisfreedom]

12. i'm with any democratic party member behind us.

[warrens]

14. This helps Bayh a lot, I think

That's how a lot of midwesterners feel. They reluctantly went along with the war, and now feel totally lied to. He won't pay a price for this, and it may help him with moderate Republicans.

I'm not nuts about the guy, but I'm starting to think he's a viable 08 candidate.

[TheDonkey]

35. Yes, he's been doing a lot of smart things to help his 08 chances

Like voting against Roberts and now this. I look forward to what he brings to the primary.

[RunningFromCongress]

22. There wouldn't even have been a vote

[mmonk]

28. If he believes in continuing

open ended occupation, it doesn't matter what he says after the fact. If he would support the Murtha plan or something very similar, I won't disparage him.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Exactly.

If he is a stay and die DLC democrat - I oppose him along with everyone else in the Stay And Die Party. If he wants to join us over in the Cut And Run Party - well then welcome aboard.

You see, Iraq right now is to me the defining issue.

[Brooklyn Michael]

31. Paging John Kerry....John Kerry....

THIS is the response you should have given in front of the Grand Canyon. And even though I voted for you in spite of that....you blew it. One of the main themes Bush ran on against you was "Don't change horses in mid-stream." And you basically agreed with him.

As our hero put it....

Jon Stewart: "Come on now, that was a softball. Hit it out of the park! All you have to do is say, NO!"

John Kerry (clip): "If I knew then what I know now about the Iraq War, I would still vote for it."

Stewart: "Is he trying to lose?"

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[TheDonkey]

36. Kerry has said it was mistake

a little late I know! I wish he would have said no back then too but it wouldn't have mattered. Bush would have run 12x more "Wolves" ads. Many mainstream democrats are only coming out now saying they regret the vote because opinion polls and new facts. It's sad but that's politics.

[Barkley]

44. You can page California Senator "DiFi"

I haven't heard an apology/ regret IWR vote.

Still this good news on the part of Bahye and Kerry.
Hopefully it means no more illegal wars until 2010.

[gulfcoastliberal]

37. I don't get how bringing home our troops alive, ASAP, will "hurt" Iraq

Our troops have the most inept CIC in history, with the most corrupt administration ever making some of the stupidest decisions ever. The longer we stay, the worse it will be for the Iraqi people, our troops, and our reputation.

Bring them home, now!

[hippiechick]

38. Oh please, Evan ...

The man couldn't find his own opinion if it slapped him upside the head.

As I've said here probably hundreds of times, Evan's a pretty boy, empty suit, riding his daddy's coat tails in politics because he's pretty much too stupid to hold a real job.

I've seen him speaking around the area; he's the master of the non-answer, and tailors his positions to suit the audience he's in front of at the moment.

Another dancing Chimp, we don't need, thank you.



:hippie:

[fujiyama]

39. Looks like every one

of the prospective candidates for '08 have now stated they would have 'acted differently' or 'voted differently'...except I'm not sure what Hillary has said. Granted, personally I don't care because it's difficult to believe that many of them have any set convictions on this at all.

They were wrong then. They are wrong now because they still believe it is winnable to some extent. I see that Hillary supports a withdrawal in '06, which is good. How long is this going to go on? Granted, I'm not sure how Bayh feels about Levin's proposal. I've been a bit out of the loop recently. If someone can fill me in it'd be much appreciated.

The only senator that is a prospective candidate for '08 I believe that was right from the begining was Russ Feingold. Feingold saw through the bullshit.

It's amusing because Bayh was (and I believe still is) on the Select Intelligence and the Armed Services Commitee. I know my own senator - Carl Levin was on both commitees and saw through the BS and was smart enough to vote 'no' on the Iraq War resolution.

That vote may be old news, but it's difficult to believe that many that voted for it did so for none other than purely craven political reasons.

[mmonk]

42. Yep

"Granted, personally I don't care because it's difficult to believe that many of them have any set convictions on this at all."

That's how I feel.

[madmark]

40. its a little better than Hillary Clinton's current stance but jesus, you

really have to question the competetence and judgment of anybody that voted for this POS war that even a non-professional observer of current events with just basic critical thinking ability could tell was a baseless, strategically disastrous fool's errand from the start.

[UTUSN]

43. How Come WE Knew, Back Then, without Special Access? n/t