Are 'Pro War' Democrats really in favor of war?

[Stinky The Clown]

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not a pro-war person. I was against idiot son's Oedipal return to Iraq. Before the 2000 election I predicted that if idiot son were elected we would be at war in the middle east wtihin two years and I have sadly been proven correct. So if you interpet the following as being in defense of the pro war stance, you would be wrong.

That being said, the discussion of issues is damned important. We all learn from participation in discussions.

So I ask: Are the 'pro war' democrats like H. Clinton, Binden, Lieberman, and others really pro war? Or are they simply postulating a different strategy for disengagement? A 'Pottery Barn' strategy, if you will.

I also ask: Are the Democrats, most famously Charlie Rangel, who are calling for a draft wrong to do so? Or are they right, in that we are currently abusing our military ..... to say nothing of the fact that a draft brings the war - and its effects - four square in the laps of every American family with children of draft age?

So, too, I ask: Do you buy the notion that the original votes to authorize praysident shitbird to use force were made from some rah-rah, tough guy notion or because they believed the 'intelligence' given them by idiot son?

[madokie]

1. I seen Rangel's call for a draft as in your face to the pro-war folks n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

11. So do I. I think it is a smart strategy.

But in the end, it would also get some of the chickenhawk assholes in our colleges out of the class room where they spew right wing hate and into uniform ... where they will get a chance to ..... uh .... connect with reality. :)

[Inland]

2. "Pro war" just a vicious sloganeering by Cadet Issue Framers

Really, does anyone think that those democrats want to Give War A Chance?

They are no more "pro war" than anybody who sees some use in war in some circumstances, which is, by the way, everybody except those few actual pacifists.

Nor can they be more for THIS war than anyone else who made the mistake of believing that a president could be so wrong, out of carelessness or ignorance or intent, on what he was telling us. The breadth and depth of the deception made the gulf of tonkin report look like a casual aside.

But some are thinking that the war provides the chance to kill off some moderate to moderate left democrats, and that they can single issue this nation into a leftist or a new party alignment, and that means catapulting the propaganda and some "framing", which is used in the older, false accusation sense than the modern, issues sense.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Those that voted for Iraq War Resolution were prowar!

No rationalization can change that fact!

They all stood alongside Dick Gephardt in the Rose Garden to suck up to Bush. They enabled this war! They have blood on their hands!

The issue now is whether these Democrats can admit they made a mistake, and publicly acknowledge that Bush lied to the country in order to get his Iraq war. An apology to the nation and to the troops should soon follow. That's the repentance step!

The next step is to stop the bleeding! They do that by supporting some of the proposed resolutions, such as the Woolsey Amendment (which was voted down by many DLC Democrats), to bring the troops home and set an exit date.

For our part, we must challenge them with this question: how many names do you want on a future Iraq War Memorial?

[Inland]

5. No, as you said, they "enabled" Bush.

That's bad enough, but to lie and say they were or are "pro war" is bullshit. It's bullshit that doesn't serve a purpose except to provide cover for Bush and make it look like he was in the mainstream.

That's not rationalization. That's the truth.

[blm]

3. Any Dem this side of Zell Miller would've let the weapons inspections WORK

first to prove that war was not necessary and avoidable. A strong diplomatic effort would have pushed Saddam out eventually.

Bush WANTED his way because they he and his cronies have stashed away BILLIONS of dollars on this war, and they have set the workd up for a perpetual Holy War, meaning more money and power for those in control.

[Inland]

6. And in fact, the war resolution called for Bush to avoid war

The real fault was trusting Bush to do that, but that makes them trusting of the president, a fault that is now cured.

[blm]

9. IWR would have PREVENTED war if it was implemented by an honest president.

.

[Inland]

10. It would have shackled a president who was prowar but not anti democracy

In other words, Bush was not only pro war but willing to do whatever it took to get us there.

It was under the assumption that Bush would actually do what the law called for--indeed what he promised he would do--that IWR passed.

I thought it was pretty naive to think that Bush would do more than go through the motions, but not everyone was emotionally and intellectually capable of believing that providence had turned its back on the US and entrusted our future to a man so completely amoral.

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Very true

[CTLawGuy]

15. so those who voted against IWR wanted the war?

NT

[blm]

16. no....they saw no need to hold Saddam accountable at all. But why let Bush

off the hook for not implementing the guidelines of the IWR honestly by changing the storyline for him?

IWR had guidelines to prevent war. By pushing the meme that it was a blank check for Bush and that a vote for IWR meant you wanted war, it made it easy for the media to not question Bush's ADMINISTRATION of the guidelines in the IWR.

[CTLawGuy]

17. what guidelines?

and I'm not letting Bush off the hook, not at all.

But I'm also not letting those who were so spineless as to fail in their duty to fight for the interests of this country off the hook.

The IWR allowed Bush to make war in Iraq to protect against the vague notion of "threats", rather than limited to something specific like getting rid of WMD.

The IWR gave him political cover to make war.

It's sad that Kerry forgot the lesson of Vietnam, either that or he doesn't care, finding his political career more important than preventing another vietnam. I think it's the former.


Some people are in denial. They can't reconcile the betrayal of our values with their natural loyalty to Democrats. So they reason that the IWR was a good thing that was handled badly, rather than seeing it as the very justification for the war itself.

[TMA68]

19. Ceding to Bush the power to declare war was--and is--inexcusable!

But I'm also not letting those who were so spineless as to fail in their duty to fight for the interests of this country off the hook.

The IWR allowed Bush to make war in Iraq to protect against the vague notion of "threats", rather than limited to something specific like getting rid of WMD.

The IWR gave him political cover to make war.

In providing this cover, the politicians who voted for the disgraceful resolution violated their oaths of office, because the Constitution they swore to uphold clearly reserves the power of deciding whether to send the nation into war exclusively to Congress:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9843

It's worth noting that, in August of 2004 -- long after it had become painfully clear that Bush had lied the country into war -- John Kerry essentially said that, had he known in October 2002 what he knew now, he still would have voted for the IWR.

In light of how unpopular this war has become, words cannot express how utterly disgusted I've become with the Democratic Party "leadership," who continue to deny the countless rank-and-file Democrats who oppose this war any voice in government, preferring instead to parrot the same Bush-lite rhetoric that Kerry did last year:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7097

Todd

[blm]

20. You don't understand that Bush DIDN'T FOLLOW the IWR guidelines and LIED

about how he made his determination that national security was at risk.

He stated that in his letter to congress. The DSM proves that to be a lie. Bush HAD no information after the weapons inspections and the diplomatic efforts that would point to war being necessary.

Blaming the IWR is a STUPID,STUPID exercise that TAKES AWAY BLAME from Bush because too many DUMBASS people and media push the Rove meme that IWR meant a vote for war as if there were NO guidelines or restrictions on Bush, at all.

Lets Bush off the hook for making that final determination based on lies.

But, hey, why bother examining Bush for LYING about his reasons in the letter to Congress? Why not just blame the IWR and pretend that IWR told Bush to do whatever he wanted with no restrictions?

Sure made it alot easier for the media to give Bush that pass.

STUPID.

STUPID.

STUPID.

The media should have been hounding Bush to show his evidence that war couldn't be avoided after weapons inspections said otherwise. Instead, we have a bunch of knownothings turning the story into dividing the Dem party into prowar and antiwar based on the IWR vote. TOTAL HORSESHIT! You'd have to be a moron to believe that Rovian spin.

[Totally Committed]

21. I understand, and understood when the IWR was held.

What I don't understand is how the Democrats who voted for the IWR thought Bush would be and honest broker in the deal. ANyone with a pair of eyes could see what a snake he is, and what a pit of vipers his administration and their advisors are. WHY DID THEY TRUST THEM WITH A MATTER AS LIFE-AND-DEATH AS WAR?

This remains the question to me today.

And, now that it has been proven that there are no WMD's there, and that this whole war was fought on fabricated intelligence and lies, none of them has stepped forward to disavow their vote, and demand the release of the DSM.

TC

[blm]

23. Incorrect. Kerry sent a letter of inquiry reDSM to Intel committee and 9

senators joined him on the letter.

It would be great if some more senators signed onto the letter, since Roberts is trying to block further investigation.

[karynnj]

51. If the resolution failed there would almost certainly have been war

about four months earlier. Bush and Powell argued for the IWR to give them strength when they went to the UN, without it they may have skipped going to the UN.

Kerry was arguing the need to go to the UN and get inspectors back in from the beginning of the summer in 2002 when Bush was already building up troops in the Gulf. As CIC Bush could order an invasion - the constitution says Congress declares war, but Clinton didn't go to Congress for any military actions in the Balkans, there was no declaration of war in Vietnam before huge numbers of troops were sent, or in Panama, Grenada, Haiti etc. The last time war was declared first was WWII.

Bush could have declared a stunning victory when the inspectors were allowed back in for invasive inspections and were actually destroying missiles. The situation in Dec 2002 and Jan/Feb 2003 was a huge improvement over October 2002. If the inspectors continued, the weapons and munitions under UN control, could have been removed or destroyed. Iraq could have been declared clean and the devastating sanctions dropped. This would leave Saddam in power, but would likely have weakened him.

This situation was the logical result of the push from Kerry and others for Bush to go to the UN - it is possible that Saddam reacted to Bush's threats more because of the IWR. It was not reasonable for Bush to attack even as the inspectors were succeeding in destroying missiles.

Kerry DID ask the Intelligence committee to complete Part 2 of the WMD study dealing with whether the intelligence was manipulated that they committed to. He specifically asked them to include an investigation into the DSM as part of this. The promised part 2 is the heart of the issue. One question is why have only such a few number of Senators signed it.

[CTLawGuy]

22. Here I am hearing the Kerryite spin

Why would Bush favor a resolution that restricted him, as you claim the IWR did?

Why wouldn't Bush have vetoed the IWR or used his influence to get a better resolution for him?


He rejected the Biden-Lugar compromise for that very reason (it tied his hands) and thus, he made sure that the Daschle-Lott (IWR) alternative got to his desk.

Bush did lie, he lied to everyone about the threat posed by Saddam, but it is ultimately Congress' say over whether and when we go to war. They should have acted to constrain and narrow Bush's authority.

Biden-Lugar was better because it would never have allowed the illegal invasion. It only allowed military action to get rid of WMD. It would never have justified the invasion.

The Democrats voted for IWR not because they thought it was right. They did it for political reasons, they were worried about the 2002 elections, and what everyone would think if they "refused to protect America". They wanted to "take the war off the table."

Yes, we should be pissed at Bush for lying. But if we can't expect the Democrats to be skeptical when they need to be and to be tough when they need to be, then we have a problem.

The IWR should never have passed. Dems controlled the Senate and should have never let it get to the floor. It may not have stopped the war, but it would have forced Bush to either take the political heat of going over congress' head, or to accept a more restrictive resolution.

[blm]

24. Biden-Lugar required Bush send letter to Congress the day he invaded while

IWR required Bush send the letter within 48 hrs. You call THAT the definitive obstacle?

When Bush said that Biden-Lugar tied his hands, the IWR was still incomplete, and senators added parts of Biden=Lugar bill to the final IWR.

Amazing that you still take Bush's word on that. He didn't care about ANY bill or its restrictions. DSM is proof that he was going in no matter what.

I wish Biden-Lugar had passed because Bush would still have invaded Iraq, only all of you who claim that Biden-Lugar would have stopped Bush somehow, would be a lot less deluded.

Not ONE of you has been able to point to ONE provision that was different from the IWR that passed that would have provided the necessary obstacle to Bush's war.

Finally, you are welcome to call it spin if you can also point out just ONE thing that isn't true. I lay it down straight, no matter what. And I trust my comprehension skills far beyond most anyone else's.

[CTLawGuy]

25. one acronym

WMD


Where is it in the operative clauses of IWR?

It's in Biden-Lugar. It IS Biden-Lugar.

Biden Lugar may not have stopped the war, but Bush would have looked a lot worse in going into war. He couldn't have said "we went in to free Iraq", like he could with IWR.

Any "Democrat" who voted for IWR should be ashamed of themselves, especially Kerry because he should know better. He had a life-altering experience that should have taught him that lesson.

He was able to vote against the first gulf war in 1990, it makes you wonder why suddenly, he pulls a 180.

[blm]

26. It was up to the WEAPONS INSPECTIONS. You really don't comprehend the

bills, do you?

Both B-L and IWR relied on weapons inspections to determine whether WMDs were in Iraq and a threat to our country.

Bush should be impeached for not following that guideline honestly and you waste time blaming the IWR which plays right into the political spin that Dems and the IWR allowed Bush to do as he pleased with no restrictions. Way to hold Bush accountable.

[CTLawGuy]

32. I voted for Kerry

I tried to hold Bush accountable by not voting for him, but for voting for the guy who was most likely to beat him. Unfortunately it did not work.

The IWR mentions ZILCH about WMD or inspectors. It gave Bush a broad scope of authorized action (combatting "threats"). B-L gave Bush a NARROW scope of action (getting rid of WMD). Thus, under BL, bush would have a hard time saying we went to Iraq to "free the Iraqis, and defend America."

Bush did not like B-L because its scope was too narrow for him. He wanted virtually unlimited power, and he got that in IWR.

[blm]

33. Congrats! You keep letting Bush off the hook, over and over again.

I'll believe Bonifaz' assessment that Bush LIED and did not implement IWR honestly.

You stick to your assessment that matches Rove spin and pretend that IWR had no restrictions for Bush. That way Bush never needs to answer for anything because it's all the IWR's fault.


How convenient. Thankfully, some of us understand the truth.

[CTLawGuy]

38. Its still bush's fault

but you won't admit I believe that because I also blame your beloved Captain Electable for his part in the war. Bush used the IWR as a means to go to war, with congress' approval. It is as simple as that. I'm sorry you won't understand that.

Bush is pure evil for starting this war. Everyone here knows that. I don't have to say that on this board. It would be a waste of bandwith. What I do have to say on this board, because it is more controversial, is how I am displeased with Kerry (and the other Dems who voted for this crap)

Would it be wrong to be upset with a teacher who saw the same child coming into class with bruises over his body every day, and decided it wasn't her business? How should that child feel about her? No, she didn't beat the child, but she was in a position to AT LEAST TRY to do something to stop it.

Kerry didn't even give us that. If he were the teacher, then he gave the abusive parent a stick, but told them not to beat the child. What a mixed message.

It's the same with the IWR. "I'll give you the authority to go to war, but just please consider not using it." That is unacceptable to the families of the 1800+ soldiers who will never see their children, mothers, and fathers again. Didn't Kerry owe it to them, as a military man himself, to do SOMETHING to help ensure their loved ones didn't get sent to die for a lie (at least not enabling it)?

Despite serving in Vietnam, Kerry is a coward of the highest order, and will remain so until the moment he apologizes for voting for IWR. How dare he put his own "electability" over 1800+ human lives. He should know about wars that are a mistake. He voted, in a sense, for the modern Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

He testified passionately against the last needless war that he served in. Why did he forget that lesson? Was it because he wanted to be president so badly?


It's a brave act to admit one is wrong. I hope someday he will realize that fact. I am waiting to forgive him, but first he must realize how he was wrong. His continued defense of his vote during the campaign doesn't help matters much.

[globalvillage]

40. I believe he did admit that it was a mistake.

IIRC, what he was doing was explaining his rationale, not defending his vote.

my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml



<snip>
Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake. "

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[blm]

48. Because the damn IWR isn't WHY we're in Iraq. NOONE else IS responsible

because the IWR should have worked to PREVENT WAR and would have had it been ADMINISTERED honestly according to its guidelines.

The congress was responsible for drawing the guidelines in the IWR and Bush ALONE had the responsibility of ADMINISTERING those guidelines.

Bush didn't do his job honestly, and you blame the IWR and the Dems who voted for it, just as Rove intended.


YOU can't admit that the IWR (or the Biden-Lugar bill) would have prevented war if they were executed by any other president. You're too busy blaming the IWR, itself.

You dug in on that position and spend more time attacking Kerry for it than you do pointing out that Bush went to war DESPITE the IWR's directives. In fact, you NEVER take an opportunity to point out that ONLY Bush had the power to administer the resolution and he FAILED and LIED his way AROUND the IWR.

Your distraction benefits just ONE side - Bush's. If you can't see that, well, undergod help you with your perception problems.

[karynnj]

52. No they didn't

The problem was in how to fight the possibility of war. In hindsight, NOTHING the Congress could have done would likely have prevented the war. Britain and the US were already secretly bombing facilities and the US had amassed a large number of troops in the Gulf.

The die was set when Bush was elected then made unstopable by 911.

[JAbuchan08]

7. Hard to say.

I'm not sure exactly how we are to disengage in Iraq. I'm hesitant to say that we should leave immediately and leave the country to destabilizing forces, because I think we should feel a sense of responsibility for creating them on the other hand we *are* a destabilizing force so staying there is out of the question.
I guess The disengagement should happen in exactly the amount of the time that it takes to convince the government to disengage and the sooner the better. I guess that Bush's strategy is to "define" us out of Iraq until we are making a "glorious exit" with oue "mission accomplished" and it would tick me off something awful if this horrible war turned from a failure to a success on a turn of phrase.
In either case we're never going to force Bush's hand until we have leaders that will speak up for us. As far as "framing" goes I just want to hear some harsher more direct rhetoric. Some might call it "uncivil," but there's a fine line between civility and timidity.

Sometimes I think that we should adopt universal service, because by the time one is drafted one is already in a war. I'm pretty sure that would never happpen and its probably a bad idea anyway.

I guess I just wish the Democrats would mouth off more, they need to learn how to be that smart-alec again. That is probably a reason why our favorite Democratic messengers are often comedians, because they're brave enough to say what a lot of people are thinking. It's not fair for entertainers (or even the few ballsy bloggers/pundits/reporters) to bear the weight of our representation, so maybe its time that Democrats started taking a page from the comedians and pundits and mouthing off a little.

On edit: As far as the Iraq war resolution I think that the Democrats displayed political cowardice and misjudged the consequences of authorizing force as a political calculation. I think they figured that they'd be able to recapture the debate and play the political game, but instead even their mildest criticisms were turned into virtual treason. I believe that the case against Iraq was without merit from the beginning and I believe our representatives should have seen it.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. You said ......

...... I believe that the case against Iraq was without merit from the beginning and I believe our representatives should have seen it.

I believe they *did* see it and chose to buy into the lie. But not for the same reasons as idiot son wanted to go to war. I think the Dems did it to appear 'tough'.

But that was not tough. It was just plain stupid ... and the ones who voted for the IWR were, in my opinion, weak and cowardly. Quiet the opposite of tough.

Tough would have been more like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1990900

Now, that being said, I do not, as a blanket statement, dislike those who voted for the IWR. But neither do I trust them as much as I might have otherwise ... ro as much as I once did.

[karynnj]

54. It had been US conventional wisdom for at least a decade

that Iraq was dangerous - which would justify getting the inspectors in.

Remember the status quo (from the end of Gulf 1 through the entire Clinton administration) also included sanctions that had a very negative impact on the poor in Iraq. The sanctions in fact already had caused damage (mild compared to now) to our relationship with the Arab world. Other countries were on the verge of dropping them. Getting the inspectors in was a very prudent act.

There are some who may have voted in fear of losing their seat. Others actually felt there was a need to do something. I believe Kerry when he says it was the hardest vote he ever cast. I also think that it is easier from the outside to see the administration as 2 dimensional and evil. Kerry seemed to have really respected Powell.

[longship]

8. It's not just the Pottery Barn analogy.

It's the same damnable logic that kept us involved in Viet Nam for years and years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. We can't cut and run. It will embolden our enemies. It will endanger our troops. The United States will lose face. It's irresponsible to withdraw when victory is just around the corner. All of these arguments are fallacious, as anybody who lived through the Viet Nam era would know.

The one and only response to these arguments is, "Eighteen years of US involvement in Viet Nam should have taught you the fallacy of your position."

[Stinky The Clown]

14. I can see a middle ground

(And I served in the Navy during the Viet Nam conflict. I remember the times and the rhetoric all too well.)

If a leader has a plan for withdrawal (not for domination, not for 'staying the course', not for 'winning the war', but for actual withdrawal) and it involves some short term troop increase, or some other form of modest and limited escalation before the final pull out, I will listen.

To me, it is a matter of motivation and goals. I will give the benefit of the doubt to any honest leader who tells me the truth ... the whys, the hows, and the whats.

But to simply throw out our own jingoistic palaver turns me off like a switch. To any Dem who does this, I would say ..... 'You want the war? YOU go fight it. Leave **my** sons alone.'

[Senator Lamb]

18. in my view

these are the categories


there are pro-war people such as Lieberman and Bayh who thought Saddam Hussein was a threat and agree with that the decision Bush made; we should still be there and stay the course

then there are Biden and Hillary type who were and still are pro-war but critize the strategy saying the coalition wasnt large enough; there werent enough troops, not listening to shinseki's advice, Rumsfeld is managing it wrong, etc... basically we need more troops,better armor; those in charge thought it was a cake walk.

then there were Democrats like Kerry and Edwards who voted yes for the IWR; believing the threat of force against Saddam Hussein would get weapon inspectors back in the counry. they only wanted war as a last resort if all else failed; if it came down to war get a large UN endorsed coaliton. these politicans are mostly anti-war now and believe Bush made a choice to go in, it wasnt necessary.

then there are consistent anti-war people like Dean from the beginning who believe in the pottery barn thinking.

finally there are true anti-war democrats who want a timetable for withdrawal like ted kennedy; finegold has a different take but anti-war with the goal of eventually leaving.

[Donna Zen]

Agree with you "in part"

First the premise I build upon: either each Democrat knew exactly what bush was up to, a rush to war (like the 10,000,000 world-wide who demonstrated before the war,) or they are too stupid to remain in office.

Yes, there are pro-war Democrats. Absolutely. Lieberman and Bayh are two, but there are probably others. Their interests are different: some because they are bought and sold, some because they believe in the concept of empire, and some for a whole host of reasons. They vote for stupid crap all the time, who knows.

There are Democrats who voted because of political expediancy. Sorry folks, but there it is. Yes, Clinton and Biden. Afterall, if they had voted "nea" and one tiny vial of some toxin was found in Iraq, then they would have damaged their presidential aspirations. The lives and treasury or the moral vacancy of going to war paled compared to their own political aspirations.

There are Democratic senators and representatives who voted "nea." They are the champions, the leaders, who deserve our support and protection from slander.

The IWR did have two conditions built in neither of which was honored by bush. Except for Byrd, I don't know anyone who publically and loudly complained. Maybe they did. But there are those who with big, big megaphones who said nothing. Why?

Dumping Saddam into the lap of the UN was not a bad idea in and of itself. The IWR was a bad resolution with a blank check for bush, who everyone knew was going to war. The economic sanctions needed to be changed/lifted, something that had to meant a return of inspectors. But I remember clearly when the IWR was first published, and I remember how this forum and others, saw the trap. I don't accept the excuses of senators who accept a position of trust going along to get along. Actually, after the leaders who stood up when it was tough, I respect the hawks next, because while I disagree with them, they are more honest than the political toadies.

[sandnsea]

27. Different reasons for different people

For a bunch of supposedly enlightened people, it's amazing how many insist on jamming people into one teeny box. Some of those votes were definitely pro-war votes, like Lieberman. Some were tough guy, like Clinton. Some were for supporting a process such as Clark laid out, like Kerry. Some of the no votes were consitutional, like Byrd. Some were based on strategic differences, like Graham. As much as people claim to hate the right's black/white thinking, they do more than enough of it on the other side of the coin.

[Donna Zen]

28. Wow, you echoes my thoughts.

I think???

[sandnsea]

29. A little

No, I don't think most people believed we would really invade Iraq without UN support. I certainly don't think most people believed ANY president would lie us into invading a country. I do think people have reached conclusions based on partisan emotion and not fact. And I do think plenty of Democrats have criticized Bush for not "doing the hard work of diplomacy" leading up to the invasion.

[Donna Zen]

30. The reason I disagree:

I saw Bill Clinton the night of the IWR vote in the house. As Bill was coming on stage it was announced that both of Maine's reps had voted no. Clinton said (paraphrase) "Let me just say before I begin, that while a president can't get everything he wants (he chuckles and get a laugh from the audience) that if a president wants to go to war, he can do it everytime."

Clinton said war, not go to the UN.

The PNAC letter was sent in 1998, anyone who had read that letter, knew what the neocons were after: a war. Clinton knew and so did everyone who voted. There was a way to get a better resolution that would have held bush back but allowed him to go to the UN; a way to make the issue come back to the congress for further debate. Wellstone and Boxer were leaders in trying for a better resolution, but Gephardt sold them out. Probably others did too.

[sandnsea]

31. Bush still would have lied

The IWR, any IWR, that forced Bush to the UN was still the goal. We wouldn't have near as much information about the facts in Iraq without the UN process. The benefit of the IWR is that it was working and proved we didn't need to go to war. If Bush had invaded in Sept 2002, all he would have had to say is "there had been no inspections since 1998 and I couldn't take the chance". Framing that vote as a vote for war has been the stupidest thing the left has ever done. Continuing to go after Democrats instead of George Bush is right up there as well.

[OzarkDem]

34. Part fear of news media/ part Stockholm Syndrome

There was already a great deal of evidence at the time that Bush had no case to invade Iraq and that the inspections had been working.

In fairness, they weren't given much choice in the matter or input in how the resolution was drafted. The media and R's did enough to convince them that anyone who didn't go along was going to get a bumpy ride in the news media afterwards.

You also have to realize that after 9-11 there was a swift and thorough effort by Bush to impose and environemnt of complete fear and paranoia in Washington DC. Local televison, radio and advertising has been saturated with conservative spin. Daily terror alerts, evacuations of offices, etc. Recall the timing of the anthrax attacks during debate and votes on the Patriot Act.

In many ways, Dems were being held hostage in a climate of unending fear and paranoia which led many to abandon better judgement.

I'm willing to forgive those who voted in favor of the resolution, but I can't accept those who don't have the courage today to admit the war was wrong.

[bklyncowgirl]

35. I believe that many of them believed in saving their political asses.

Remember the times folks.

People were still jumping at shadows after September 11. The Afgan war had by and large gone well--all right, there was that little bit about not catching Bin Laden--but aside from that it went very well indeed. Bush was riding high in the polls. Standing up to him meant opposing a popular president after America had been attacked.

Yup, many Democrats to their credit, stood up and voted against the war. Other Democrats and some Republicans who had doubts about the wisdom of the thing voted for the IWR--and let's face it--no matter how they try to wiggle out of it everyone knew that Bush was determined to do this war--I knew it and I'm just a poor little citizen.

They made a few assumptions that turned out to be dead wrong. First of all, They also assumed that there would be at least some rusty old WMD's so they could point to them and say "See, we told you so." They assumed that the Iraqi people would be so glad to get rid of Saddam Hussein that they'd be willing to live with whatever puppet dictator we put in power. Finally, they assumed that victory would be quick and easy. No one thought, in the immortal words of John Kerry, that Bush and Co. "would fuck it up so bad".

Some of the Democrats may actually believe in the PNAC theory. Still others are so pathologically afraid of not appearing weak that ironically, they are supporting a policy that is draining our country of manpower and resources and weakening our defenses. We couldn't meet a real military threat right now if we wanted to.

Whatever the reasons, many leading Democrats seem unwilling to admit that they made a mistake in trusting George Bush and worse yet are quick to jump on any of their colleagues who are willing to say otherwise.

Sounds like the old definition of insanity to me.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. Biden is definitely pro war and pro imperialism (and a PNAC signator)

His exact quote this morning "The most important goal in Iraq is protecting American interests".

All about the Benjamins for this corporatist motherfucker.

[kenny blankenship]

37. I believe such votes were made from cowardice & political calculus

--and they were poor mistaken calculations at that. Not that their bad luck should take any blame away from the cravenness of their vote.

People in office are ALWAYS put in a bind where they must show the courage of their convictions. Often they are advised to trade away some conviction they hold for the greater good of being able to maintain office and uphold a more important principle--touching on a larger issue. In this case though, which was a matter not just of war and peace but of Republic versus Empire, THERE COULD BE NO LARGER ISSUE. It was time to take a stand for the system of International Law and peace put in place after WWII (at the cost of millions of lives), and to take a stand for what shreds of legitimacy remained to the Constitution of 1787. Our pro-war Democrats can SAY they are or were against this war ALL they like. However, in surrendering the warmaking power of Congress to the discretion of the President, they surrendered the Republic to a wouldbe emperor without a shot--practically without a complaint. SO then, if they are now for continuing our committment to building a Shia dominated Islamic Republic on the Tigris and Euphrates floodplains which will be in league with Revolutionary Iran, and they support keeping American tanks and troops and warplanes deployed there for this purpose, killing many more young Americans and Iraqis, then they are OBJECTIVELY PRO-WAR, and PRO-EMPIRE, all their bullshit excuses notwithstanding.

In terms of 1930s Germany, they occupy the place of the Center Party which voted to give dictatorial powers to Hitler, ensuring world-war and the Nazi reign of terror over Europe.

If they actually believed the lies they were told by this administration after witnessing the theft and usurpation of the Presidency enacted by the Bush Family and the GOP in Florida, THEN THEY ARE TOO STUPID TO HOLD ANY OFFICE NO MATTER HOW INCONSEQUENTIAL. ALmost every contention of the Bush-Blair warpig party had already been debunked BEFORE the war. The official Not-Finding of any WMDs, or WMD PROGRAMS, or indications of readiness to reformulate a plan to reconstitute wmd programs subsequent to the invasion, was all anticlimax for those of us who had followed the story beyond scanning the MSM's headlines. People with far less access to real information and experts than the Congressional Democrats understood that the Bush Administration was lying practically in every word it said regarding Iraq.

They have no excuse. Which must be partly why they're so silent and lying so low now: accomplices before the fact they share in the guilt equally with Bush.

They can go to Hell.

[Pepperbelly]

39. That's not rational ...

So you're telling me that if you were a Senator and the National Security Adviser and the CIA briefed you with 27 color 8X10 glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, and they assure you that the clock was ticking for a mushroom cloud over Chicago or San Diego, that you would somehow have intuited that the CIA was lying to you?

Can you honestly say that? I cannot. Perhaps you're much smarter or more perceptive than I but I would have been seriously alarmed by such a portrait by the NSA and CIA. And if I was seriously alarmed over the prospect and failed to support provisions that might protect us, I would have been grossly violating my oath of office.

[CTyankee]

41. Yep, hindsight is the word

and it is 20/20.

Having said that, I do believe that history does afford us a chance to take the harder way, if we believe in our gut that something is really wrong. It means having to accept the consequences, however, which may include utter and desolate defeat if we are wrong or are perceived as wrong.

At this point, with my 20/20 hindsight, I think it would be far better to be "right than president."

[kenny blankenship]

43. Not hindsight AT ALL

I and other people knew of several instances where pure crap was being foisted on the public as "intelligence". I knew then (just like I know NOW that there are no WMDs in Iraq), that if there were any WMDs to be found in Iraq, the "evidence" of its existence which was being brandished by the Chimpministration was nonetheless a propaganda fabrication.
It was shoddy and bombastic. You may be dumb enough to be taken in by it, but I rather doubt the Democrats on the Hill were dumb enough.

What they were instead: craven and cowardly. Of courtse many Democrats were not taken in and were not cowed into supine obedience to Chimpus Maximus. Sadly the higher the profile of the Democrat the more likely they were to make themselves receptacles for the looming wargasm and Chimpsemination.

I expect to hear such rationalization as you've made from Republicans--but only from Republicans.

[CTyankee]

47. As a lifelong Democrat, let me say

that I certainly did not have your "slam dunk" evidence that everything that the Admin had to say about WMD was false, however, I did not believe it, but I just couldn't prove it. I was not a Senator or congressperson, however. Yes, I think the Dems should have had that leap of faith that told them to transcend their present reality and realize that Bush was a total fake. I wish it.

Look, what I was trying to say was that the Dems in the Senate were trying to cover their asses in order to keep them there, voting for things WE DEMS want to have. Is that perfect? No, no , no. So what do we do? Cry, cry, cry or work, work, work? Your choice.

[karynnj]

55. I was against the war

I even took 2 teen daughters to NYC and DC to protest. However, I cannot say I KNEW there were no WMD - you did not really KNOW this either. I did know I wanted Bush to work with the world and use diplomacy to address the issue - not war. (and I assume this was where you were too. Or at least you wanted no war)

I do not KNOW what the Senators were shown - but from the fact that they were reported to be "grim faced" when leaving the closed meeting - it is believable that they thought they knew more than we did. To think Bush faked intelligence would have seemed like paranoia.

I do think the decision was hard for Kerry. He had been investigating Terror before anyone considered it important, he knew more weapons were found then were expected in 1991, and he stated clearly and repeatedly that Bush shouldn't go without Congress and the UN.

[kenny blankenship]

42. I must be more perceptive than you

But it wasn't intuition. This crap was being debunked AS it came out. You hear two or more stories like this, the AL tubes, the yellowcake BS, the gradeschool level plagiarism of the "British Dossier" and if you don't begin to look askance at the rest of it then YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON.
Satellite "photographs" waved around by Powell in his UN speech were debunked AS THEY APPEARED by people like Larry Johnson. Hill Democrats HAVE access to such alternate opinions IF they want it.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU.

[Pepperbelly]

44. geez ... I bet it's pretty cool being ...

so much smarter than so many of us, eh? I might have been tempted to give a bit of credence to what the Director of CIA and the National Security Advisor told me over what some people on the internet were saying but that is because I am a "moron" I believe you said.

Perhaps, if I study hard, I can learn to be that smart, too.

[kenny blankenship]

45. I believed Mohammed El Bardei over Dick "reconstituted nukes" CHeney

I don't think it takes SPECIAL INTELLIGENCE to figure out which side of that disagreement was telling the truth and which one was telling whatever lies he needed to tell in order to start a war (a war which would add enormously to his already enormous wealth.)

Is Mr. El Baradei on the internet? I suppose he is, somewhere. But where or if is irrelevant to me. He has credibility on the subject of Iraq's nuclear program, and Hans Blix has credibility, and Cheney and Condoleeza Rice have none whatsoever.

What you need to learn is to UNLEARN trust in broken institutions and in BAD people.

[Pepperbelly]

46. gee ...you're so full of advice ...

if I take it to heart, will I be as popular, balanced, well-spoken and prescient as you?

[karynnj]

56. Wasn't the disagreement with El Baradei AFTER the vote

The problem was the Senators voted in October, many things were discredited between then and March. Blix and Baradei had already done enough work THANKS TO THE UN getting them into Iraq. Much of what we know about the lies resulted from these inspectors. Without that information, whoever was brave enough to leak the DSM may not have done so.

Senator Kerry called on Bush (in speeches and op-eds) in the February time frame asking that he let the inspectors complete their work. Bush invaded AFTER Saddam allowed invasive inspections and the actual destruction of his best missiles. Bush later said Saddam didn't cooperate with the inspections - which was just a lie. It is heartbreaking and truly unbelievable that Bush invaded a country as it destroyed weapons at our command. I could not believe this when it happened. It defies logic.

[enough already]

49. Rangel's call for a draft is idiotic both morally and politically

Why in the hell would we want ANYONE to think for even one second that we are in favor of a military draft?

[MadHound]

50. Well, judging by the noise they are making,

And the sabers they are rattling, yes, these pro-war Democrats are in favor of the war. Clinton is calling for 80,000 more troops, they continue to vote for every war financing bill that comes through the Senate, they seem to be wanting to our hawk the chicken hawks. And the blood on their hands is only somewhat less than that on the hands of Bushco.

As far as Hagel's draft proposal, I can see the point that he is trying to make, but I think a draft for whatever reason is a bad idea. If nothing else we need to be starving this war of money and manpower. Throwing a draft into the mix will simply allow Bushco to continue their perpetual war for oil and empire.

[mmonk]

53. Some dems do in fact

share some of the neocon dream. Some who voted for the IWR don't but yes some are pro-war. It's up to us to learn the difference by examining what they say now.