As a member of the US Legislature, would you have voted for War with Iraq?

[VoteClark]

I know there is a lot of mudslinging at candidates that voted for war with Iraq. I myself was against it like many others. But are we being fair to those that voted for it? Put yourself in their shoes:

The people you represent send thousands of letters to your office asking that you support the war. You get to the Hill and you are called to a special meeting.
In the meeting there are several members of the military, CIA, and intelligence advisors to the President. They sit you down that explain that Iraq is working with terrorists. They have chemical and biological weapons and are delevoping nuclear weapons. The Terrorists are planning to use the weapons on American Civilians on US Soil. They then show you documents they have showing that Saddam bought uranium from Africa, and that they know for fact that they have a nuclear weapons program. They also stress that the UK has also verified the intelligence and can point to an area of Iraqi where the weapons are stored. They then state that informents within Iraqi have verified this information and if we don't act soon millions of Americans will die.

Don't you think anyone would be scared into voting to go to war with Iraqi? I think I would be. I think the real person to blame in this is Bush lying to members of Congress, not the Congress members that were lied to.

If you notice, most of the higher ranking members of the Senate and the House voted for the war. Only a few didn't.

I am against the war, but I think it reasonable to understand why some Democrats voted for the war. I also think we are being unfair to the candidates that did.

J4Clark

[dixiechiken]

1. I understand what you're saying ....

But I disagree. How could SO MANY Americans have been SO POSITIVE that the hawks were lying, yet these Congressmen and women didn't have a clue ... ? While this administration never once (and still hasn't) provided one shred of evidence to back up their ever-changing justification(s), there was plenty of evidence to at least rightfully doubt what they were being told ... and at that point, they had a responsibility to ask more questions.

But instead, they chose to disenfranchise the American people when, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, they gave the president the authority to make war on anyone without additional congressional authority. He was authorized to attack any nation, organization or person involved - directly or indirectly - in the 9/11 attacks. The resolution they passed didn't name any specific nation, organization or person .... the designation of the guilty was left to Shrub alone. They basically handed this potted-plant of a president a blank check to make war upon whoever he wants anywhere in the world -- even inside the US.

And I don't doubt that they did get thousands of letters from their constituents asking them to support the war ... but certainly they had to have gotten as many letters (if not more) asking them to oppose the war. Here again they made a choice ... and they chose to worry more about keeping their jobs than they did about doing their jobs.

Only now are some of them even starting to ask questions ... questions that they should've been asking a year and a half ago. Nope ... screw 'em. Panty-waisted cowards.

[tkmorris]

3. Exactly

I couldn't have said it better DixieChicken and I shant try. Kudos, thumbs up, and all that sort.

On a side note, I sure miss Lowell George. ;(

[izzie]

5. Dixiechick is right on, but the public did not need cash in their pot.

They voted and were sell outs, I think.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. 'Splained perfectly.

:thumbsup:

[liberalnurse]

2. No.

I wanted the inspectors to give their assessment after a complete search for WMD. I would never of given my vote. I was tense and distrubed during the whole process.

[Mairead]

4. There were at least a few who admitted that the anti-war letters

outnumbered the pro- enormously, but they voted for war anyway. Iirc, Feinstein was one of them and Kerry another (that vote upset people in Mass enough that Dr Randy Forsberg, a Kerry supporter, actually filed and ran against him in the election, in protest!)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. I wouldn't

strictly on Constitutional grounds. Only Congress can declare war. The whole vote on giving Bush the unprecidented power was unconstituional. I would have stood my ground on that point, and that point alone.

[searchingforlight]

7. I agree with you.

I also think that there are many other things that should have sent up a red flag. Rummy had been wanting to go after Iraq for a long time. Colin Powell was against it. Also, the other major powers were against it (except Britian). There was a long checklist of other sources to consider. That is what they are there for.

If they wouldn't do it then, how can they say they would act any different when in office?

[GreenArrow]

8. No

for reasons already given above. It was clearly BS from it's inception. And it is interesting how many congress people still trot out the same old familiar lies; Sadaam kicking out the inspectors, for example. I still hear that. Lieberman says it. Kerry has said it. Surely they know better, and if they don't, they don't need to be where they are at.

[Upfront]

9. No

I knew they were lying and the evidence was not there. All I had to work with was the internet, and my State Sen., Carl Levin. Carl was in the know and he voted against the war. Told me all I needed to know, and confermed my thinking. If I could realize they were lying, then any Sen. or Rep. should have beem able to. They supported the war because they saw it as polital death not to. Don't give me this mis-led crap, I don't buy it.

[killbotfactory]

10. The Public knew everything the congress knew...

And were being fed the same bullshit by Bush. That's why it's hard for me to believe that their votes were only shameless ass-covering because they were afraid to take on Bush on national security and wanted to get the issue off the table as quickly as possible.

Since I support Dean, here is what he was saying at the time Iraq became an issue:

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said if Saddam is shown to have atomic or biological weapons, the United States must act. But he also said Bush must first convince Americans that Iraq has these weapons and then prepare them for the likelihood American troops would be there for a decade. - August 12, 2002

"There's substantial doubt that is as much of a threat as the Bush administration claims." Though Americans might initially rally to military action, 'that support will be very short-lived once American kids start coming home in boxes,' Mr. Dean warned Wednesday as he campaigned in Iowa. - September 06, 2002

"The president has to do two things to get the country's long-term support for the invasion of Iraq," Dean said in a telephone interview. "He has done neither yet." Dean said President Bush needs to make the case that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic or biological weapons, and the means to use them. Bush also needs to explain to the American public that a war against Iraq is going to require a long commitment. - September 18, 2002

Dean, in an interview Tuesday, said flatly that he did not believe Bush has made "the case that we need to invade Iraq." Dean said he could support military action, even outside the U.N., if Bush could "establish with reasonable credibility" that Hussein had the capacity to deliver either nuclear or biological weapons against the United States and its allies. But he said that the president, to this point, hadn't passed that test.

"He is asking American families to sacrifice their children, and he's got to have something more than, 'This is an evil man,' " Dean said. "There are a lot of evil people running countries around the world; we don't bomb every one of them. We don't ask our children to die over every one of them." - September 18, 2002

Dean took a position of leadership and has been rightfully rewarded for it.

[AnAmerican]

19. Actually Iraq was an issue....

long before Dean chimed in..

"The trappings of a state of siege trap us in a state of fear, ill equipped to deal with the Patriot Games, the Mind Games, the War Games of an unelected President and his unelected Vice President."

<snip>


"Our Congress gave the President the ability to respond to the tragedy of September the Eleventh. We licensed a response to those who helped bring the terror of September the Eleventh. But we the people and our elected representatives must reserve the right to measure the response, to proportion the response, to challenge the response, and to correct the response.........Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq....."


Dennis gave this speech on February 17, 2002

Full text at https://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm


Dennis has lead the charge and show the leadership. Give credit where credit is due.

[lastliberalintexas]

11. Nope

That's a cop out. There are elected officials who put their careers on the line all the time, because they have the courage to do what is right. Look at the Texas Dems, both the House Reps and the Senators. In all likelihood, several of them will be defeated next time around b/c of the walkouts. They did it anyway, b/c ironically, it was what was necessary to protect the interests of their constituents.

While I will vote for any of our candidates, I have very legitimate issues with their Iraq war resolution vote.

[Shrub Wacker]

12. We were going in no matter

what, because, the President can wage war for at 90 days without Congressional approval, under the War Powers Act.

The resolution tried to get Bush to go back to the UN and form the kind of international coallision we needed for post-war Iraq. Sadly, we are paying for the Shrub's duplicity now.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

13. Vote: NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence was full of holes from day one. So why the hell would I have rushed into a pre-emptive war without any evidence of a threat?

[dpbrown]

14. Maybe, but Kucinich got more than half the House Dems to vote Nay

So I think the "truth" was out there for the Congress to pick up on, if someone had been a standard-bearer in the Senate. That said, I won't fault any of the candidates solely for voting for the war, because the basis for the use of force was the pathetic and pathological flogging of nonexistent danger by the Bush regime.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Calling Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards supporters!

What would YOU have done?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Chicken kick

:kick:

[CMT]

17. I agree with

Robert Byrd, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee, and many other members of the Senate and House who voted against the war--including my own representative in congress--Tammy Baldwin.

[dsc]

20. One more problem with your analysis

You said this:

If you notice, most of the higher ranking members of the Senate and the House voted for the war. Only a few didn't.


That is simply not true. In the House over 2/3 voted against including the number 2,3 leaders and several ranking members including Defense, Judiciary, and Intelligence. Gephardt is the only major leader to vote for and Lantos is the only prominate member of the foreign relations committee to have done so.

In the Senate the Chairs of the Intelligence (Graham), Defense (Levin), and Appropriations (Byrd) voted against. As did Kennedy. Leahy. Wellstone, and several other two and three term Democrats. The Senate vote was 22 to 28 on the Democratic side.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Calling Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards supporters!

Separate the candidate from yourself. What would you have done?


Note: I'm getting nothing but a can of crickets here, people!