Why the IWR vote will not affect my vote in the primaries.

[DjTj]

At the debate this week, Wesley Cark said, “I think this party's making a great mistake by trying to make a litmus test on who would have or did or didn't vote for that resolution last October.”

This is something I’ve heard over and over at DU, and after hearing Clark say this I decided to stop lurking and post this message because I wholeheartedly agree with Clark that it is a huge mistake for people to rule out candidates simply on the IWR vote.

Clark went on to say, “The real issue in front of us is that this president misled the American people and the Congress into war.”

We now know that the Bush administration had made up false intelligence and that they didn’t have a postwar plan in place, but were those things so clear in October 2002? Even under the Clinton administration, there was credible evidence of WMD programs in Iraq. The British had produced evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. And all that was only the information that was made known to the public. If the Bush administration was able to mislead the public with evidence that was scrutinized by the international press, think of how much misinformation they would have been able to spread in backrooms in top secret briefings with Congress that couldn’t be second-guessed by anyone.

I have no doubt that the administration was able to produce more than enough evidence to convince a rational Senator or Congressman to vote for the IWR. The question facing Congress in October 2002 was how much they wanted to trust Bush, the CIA, and the military intelligence they were looking at during the IWR vote.

Perhaps it’s indefensible for a candidate to say that they trusted Bush or the CIA; how could they be so stupid? That seems to be a prevalent attitude around here, but I doubt many people on this forum spent more time poring over intelligence than Congressional staff last October. The candidates running for President now were not alone in voting for the IWR and that is enough evidence to establish that the intelligence was not clear cut one way or the other. I really can not dismiss a candidate for putting a little bit of trust in the President of the United States. It will be a sad day when we can’t trust the President to be truthful about something as serious as going to war. Unfortunately, that day is right now, and I think that Bush’s betrayal over the Iraq issue is something that inspired all the candidates to run now. If they made a mistake of trusting Bush then, it has only strengthened their resolve to seek the presidency, and it is certainly a mistake they will not make again.

Now what if a candidate did not trust President Bush at that time? Then, the clear answer would be to circle the wagons and fight against the war with everything you’ve got, right? I don’t think the answer is so clear. The military had been mobilizing for months against Iraq, and we were pretty much ready to go before Bush even came to Congress for approval. I seriously doubt that any action short of passing a Resolution forbidding Bush from moving into Iraq would have stopped him then. The best Congress could have done would be something like Biden-Lugar, which failed anyway and would not have stopped Bush from certifying a threat and moving in.

If you did not trust Bush’s evidence on Iraq at that time, why trust Bush to even wait for Congressional approval? By the time the resolution hit the House floor, the military was ready to go, and they weren’t going to be pulled back by any Congressional action. The question facing Congress in October 2002 was really how to force Bush to go into Iraq the right way, with an international coalition. Bush was going to go before the UN, and there was no way any other countries were going to jump on board if our own Congress had disapproved of the war. Voting for the resolution was our best shot at getting a real international coalition. Unfortunately, Bush’s half-assed diplomacy got us only a half-assed coalition.

So what if you don't trust anything Bushdoes ? If you believe in MIHOP or LIHOP at all, I think you’d agree with me that if Congress had somehow managed to stop Bush from going to war, it would almost guarantee that another terrorist attack would hit American soil. The Democratic Party would be painted as failing to protect the American people, and Bush would be riding a free ticket to reelection. If Congress had stopped the IWR and another large terrorist attack occurred, it might have meant the end of the Democratic Party as we know it.

It was all too convenient that the IWR hit Congress just weeks before the 2002 November elections. Karl Rove was using the heartstrings of the American public as ransom and the lives of American soldiers as a political tool. When you look back to October 2002, you see a Congress between a rock and a hard place. There was no good way to vote, and I don’t blame any candidate for the choice they made. I blame President Bush for putting them in that situation.

No doubt, some posters will point out that Kucinich fought against the resolution, and he should certainly be commended for that. However, people need to realize that that fight, although noble, was relatively inconsequential. Bush had already moved all his pawns into place, and the Democrats did not have a move to avoid checkmate. Whether Democrats voted for the IWR or not, we were going to war, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Wesley Clark continued his debate comment by saying, “This administration took us to war recklessly and without need to do so and it was wrong. And that is the issue in this election and that is the issue we should be taking to the American people.”

If we’re going to blame anyone for the past, we need to blame President Bush. When we’re choosing a Democratic candidate, we need to look to the future. If the most important issue to you is Iraq, you should look at the plans that each candidate has for getting us out of Iraq. Don’t base your vote on something that Senators and Congressmen had to do last October when they were backed into a corner by the manipulative right wing hawks and PNAC strategists. That’s exactly what the Republicans want us to do. In Iraq they created another issue, like gay marriage, where one stance helps a candidate in the primaries but will hurt them in the general election. Basing your vote on the IWR is doing exactly what the Republicans wanted us to do when they put Congress in that difficult position last October.

You can say that you are against war in general, and that you support Kucinich, but your really can’t divide the other candidates’ Iraq positions based on the IWR vote. Some candidates support the $87 billion, some want to pull out faster than others, some want to go to NATO for help. An IWR vote one way or another isn’t dispositive of a position on any election issue. We’re not choosing a candidate to vote on the IWR, we’re choosing a candidate to get us out of Iraq and lead this nation for another four years.

So I urge people to do as General Clark suggested and look past the IWR vote. Give all the candidates a fair chance and choose the best candidatefor you. Stop thinking about October 2002 and start thinking about November 2004.

[LSparkle]

1. I agree ...

If we all agree that * lied, then why hold anyone's vote against him? They were duped -- as were we all -- and should be cut some slack on that vote (especially by those who weren't in positions of having to vote in the first place!).

[joeybee12]

2. Disagree, mainly because I doubt anyone was duped--they knew

Dumbo was lying. Hell, I knew it. We all knew it. They voted for it because it was politically expedient.

And while I don't think the vote should be a litmus test, the vote is part and parcel of the spineless Dem leadership and those who have been in Washington far too long to not have any balls left.

[DjTj]

9. politically expedient...

...is a way to make it sound worse than it actually was.

The point is that even if they knew Bush was lying, there's still an argument for passing the IWR. Bush was lying about everything, and he probably would have gone forward without the resolution. Voting for it gave the best chance for an international coalition and avoided a MIHOP situation.

The fact that this got politicized is Karl Rove's doing. We shouldn't be blaming Democrats for that. Sometimes we just get painted into a corner and we just have to accept that.

[ulysses]

3. erm...

It will be a sad day when we can’t trust the President to be truthful about something as serious as going to war.

**mouth moves, but no sound comes out**

**gasp**

**wheeze**

WILL BE???

[jayfish]

4. I Agree 100%. My Only Problem...

is, why are the Dems. who voted for (or supported)the IRW having such hard time explaining their position (even Clark)? It seemed to me, at the time, that the stated purpose of the resolution was to show a united resolve, to Saddam Hussein and the UN, that unfettered inspections be allowed in Iraq . Only after all options had been exhausted would force become an option. Inspections were granted and we invaded anyway.

Jay

[DjTj]

5. I think the Dean campaign...

...and to a certain extend the Kucinich campaign have made that position indefensible.

If they say that they voted for it only to show a united resolve, the easy response is that they should've voted for something that said that instead of giving Bush a "blank check". Since we're at war now, that vote in hindsight is a vote "for war", so trying to explain the ex ante situation, even though that's what really makes sense, doesn't resonate with the public.

The candidates all dance around the issue because it's not a conversation anyone wants to have. All it will do is divide the Democrats and weaken us against Bush.

[jayfish]

17. Whether The Position Is Defensible Or Not Is Something...

the voters will decide. I myself would not have voted for the resolution, precisely because it was a blank check and ShrubCo. (or any President for that matter) is not to be trusted with such power. The Congress abdicates it's constitutional responsibilities on a regular basis so I'm not sure the public would have such a hard time swallowing it this time.

Jay

[Cocoa]

6. I don't think they are having a hard time explaining it

I see it over and over, they explain their positions clearly, then the whore interviewer pretends to look confused, as if it was a contradictory answer.

Just notice, when there are anti-war protests, is anyone tearing down statues of Lieberman or Kerry?

This is Bush's war.

[jayfish]

20. I Disagree.

On this issue they don't explain clearly. As an example, the good General always says that he would not have voted to go to war (what the IWR was used for), he would have voted to put pressure on the UN and Saddam (what the IWR was meant for). It is a terrible parsing of words and not very clear to someone who doesn't follow this stuff everyday to understand the minutia of the issue. The same goes for the, weeeell I thought it was the good but Dubya wrecked it, crowd. Sorry folks when you give up your power you don't really have much of a say in how it is used.

Jay

[Cocoa]

24. to someone that doesn't follow this stuff every day

it also might be hard to understand why the Congress would get in the way of the President regarding war.

[MadHound]

25. Maybe, just maybe because it is the right thing to do?

After all, it is the Congress' job to be part of the checks and balances system that is our government. And I would say that a power mad, warmongering President needs to be checked AND balanced, wouldn't you?

[Cocoa]

7. very well written

I felt Clark's pain during the debate. When Dean brought up the IWR, they showed Clark shaking his head and I was doing the same thing.

[killbotfactory]

8. They did something wrong to get the issue "off the table"

Anyone who knew better but supported it so that it couldn't be used against them politically is a coward.

Anyone who supported this stupid war shows a profound lack of judgement.

Bush presented no solid evidence, no post-war plan, and showed an indifference to multilateralism through his entire term.

And if that wasn't made clear enough before the vote, it was certainly made clear afterwards right up until we invaded. The people who supported the IWR had plenty of time to apologize and renounce their vote and call Bush out for his idiocy, but none of them did. They were all trembling under Bush's poll numbers and to busy calling candidates against the war the next (insert favored famous political failure here). They didn't have the courage to lead when we needed them the most.

Sorry, I'm quite bothered by it. And everytime they give some bullshit justification for what they did it just pisses me off more.

[DjTj]

10. It's not like they voted just for personal gain...

...If Kerry, Edwards, or Gephardt had voted against the Resolution, their campaigns would probably be in much BETTER shape right now. Think what it would be like if one of those guys could claim they were anti-war.

They did what was best for the troops, who were going to go into Iraq anyway, by showing a united front to try to build a coalition. They also did what was best for the Democratic Party by avoiding a nightmare scenario where another terrorist attack would occur and the Republicans could use it against them.

The selfish decision would have been a throwaway Nay vote, which would have gotten them cheap gains in the primaries.

[killbotfactory]

11. I don't think it's good for troops

To make them fight in unjust wars of dubious purpose and without a post-war plan.

Going to war was the wrong thing to do. If they didn't know that, they should have. If they knew it, and supported the debacle anyway, then they are cowards.

[sangh0]

12. OK, so let's focus on Dems mistakes, and give Bush* a pass

Is that your final answer?

[killbotfactory]

15. I'm not giving Bush a pass

I'm supporting a candidate who had the common sense and good judgement to oppose the goddamn war.

[sangh0]

16. Sure you are

Your post says nothing bad about Bush*. Just the Dems.

[killbotfactory]

18. This thread isn't about Bush, it's about the Dems.

So there you go.

The only people giving Bush a pass are the cowardly dems who voted for the IWR and refuse to criticize the war.

[AP]

21. It is so naive to think that if Ke, Ed, or Ge voted against IWR they'd be

doing better. First of all, Gep's probably going to win IA, and there's as good of a chance right now that a yes IWR voter will get the nom as a no voter.

But the real naivety is in thinking that the Republicans didn't have a strategy in both cases and won't screw over either kind of nominee.

[killbotfactory]

22. They all thought we'd find WMD's

And being against the war would be indefensible.

Oops.

That's the conventional wisdom for you.

[MadHound]

13. Sorry, I refuse to buy your argument

The candidates and anyone else who voted for the IWR allowed themselves to be stampeded into voting yes on it. There was fine intelligence AT THE TIME that Iraq had no WMD and was no credible threat to their neighbors, much less the US. One piece of evidence was an intelligence report put together by the CIA back in '98 stating that Iraq had no WMD. The Niger story was known to be a bald faced lie also, if you took the time to do your research. There was plenty of evidence at the time of the vote on these matters.

Then there is the matter of letting the inspectors complete their job, and listening to what they had to say. At the time of the vote, the heads of UNSCOM and the IAEA were both saying that they hadn't found anything, and that they didn't think they would find anything. Why not let them finish their job and let experts on the ground give their intelligence and opinion on the matter? But instead our represenatives shirked their duty and allowed themselves be stampeded into a pre-emptive war by the Bushies.

And there is also the matter of using their heads for something besides a hat rack. Iraq had suffered 500,000 casulties due to the embargo and the United States' thrice a week bombing campaign. Their infrastructure was in shambles. Their air force was non existent. Their armed forces was decimated and weak. This was all known at the time of the IWR. Does this look or sound like a country that was a threat? Think people!

And your rationale that another LIHOP or MIHOP would have happened if these represenatives voted down the IWR is specious at best. You should vote for what you think is best, not would haves or could haves, but on the matter at hand. If another LIHOP or MIHOP happened, then go out and bust Bush's balls over it. Don't just meekly roll over and let Bushco do what they want. Which is worse, the possiblity of another three thousand people dying in another terrorist attack, or the tens of thousands of people who have actually died, along with tens of thousand who are going to perish due to Bush's actions and our represenatives' complacency therein?

No, I'm not going to forgive and forget what these quisling Dems did. If they rolled over on this big issue, what other issues will they roll over for in the future? Those who voted for the atrocity known as IWR are unfit for public office and should not get rewarded with a nomination, much less the highest office in the land.

[sangh0]

14. OK, so let's focus on Dems mistakes, and give Bush* a pass

And it's funny how the only mention of "Bush" in your post refers to a speculative crime. Couldn't you talk about Bush*'s real crimes?

Even just a lil bit?

[ulysses]

19. ok, let's do that.

Bush is doing what neocons do. It's like the mice we've had in our kitchen - they're just out doing what mice do, looking for their next meal at my expense. That doesn't mean that I'm going to make them a nice doggie bag or open the flour bag so that they don't have to chew through it. I'm killing the little dears.

So it goes. It's one thing for a mouse to eat your dry goods, and it's another for your cat (who's supposed to be protecting your home from said mouse) to not only fail to eat said mouse (as in the case of my own cat) but to show him where the tastiest parts are stored.

[MadHound]

23. I have a better idea for you

Let us take ALL of the warmongers, and their enablers, Dem or 'Pug, to task for perpitrating a crime against humanity. I'm sorry, a warmonger is a warmonger is a warmonger, whether they be Dem, 'Pug, or Bull Moose. Or did we learn nothing from LBJ's ramrodding through the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

This is not about partisan politics, this is about holding a gang of war criminals responsible for their actions. The Congress critters had the intelligence at hand to make the right decision, they presumably had the intelligence to realize what Bushco was doing, yet they caved anyway and handed Bush a blank check to wage perpetual war. Anybody who had any part in that has their hands drenched with the blood of our dead soldiers, and the blood of thousands of innocent, dead Iraqi citizens.

You can try to rationalize this away, saying that they would have been ripped apart in the elections, but that doesn't hold water. What ever happened to fighting for what is right and decent? This was the BIG issue of our time, it is when you call in every favor you have, cash in every chip you've got, and fight for what is the decent, right, and just thing to do. Instead, the quisling Dems rolled over and peed all over themselves to please their corporate and political masters. And thus, thousands have died, as will thousands more. So much for doing their job, representing their constituents. So much for doing what is right and just in the world. So much for showing some backbone.

You want to talk about Bush's crimes, start a thread, and if I'm around at the time, I'll jump in on it. I think I've proved this time and again by the posts I've made in other threads. But this thread concerns those Democratic candidates who voted for the IWR, and I think that I'll stick on topic in this thread. It is, after all, a worthy topic that needs to be considered. For since these quisling Dems voted wrong on the big issue, what's to say they won't do the wrong thing if they're President? It brings up the issue of character, morals, and backbone. These warmongering Dems have shown none of those qualities, thus they are not fit to hold the highest office in our land.