"I would NEVER have voted for war."

[welshTerrier2]

quite a few Democrats have indicated that if they knew then what they know now, they would NEVER have voted for the IWR ... most of what "they seem to know now" appears to be based on the WMD lies that bush told ... are there other things they've learned that has caused them to switch positions on how they would have voted ??

the list is long of those taking this position and it's growing everyday ...

and taking this position raises a number of very interesting questions ...

for example, some had condoned the invasion of Iraq, even in the absence of WMD, because "Saddam was a dangerous tyrant who sought to destabilize the Middle East" ...

and some condoned the invasion because Saddam was "gassing his own people" ...

and some condoned the invasion because "Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections process" ...

perhaps other "non-WMD" reasons had been provided ...

so now that some of our reps have become more enlightened, can we assume that they do NOT consider any of the reasons for war listed above as sufficient justification??

are they now more narrowly focussed on the single issue of whether Saddam had WMD and the inclination to use them??????

[still_one]

1. it is about time

definitely not profiles in courage, and they waited until bush's poll numbers were down, but better late than never

[Totally Committed]

40. Face it, most of our Senators were a bunch of gutless wonders

during that IWR vote. Now, they say they wouldn't have voted for it, and some even without disavowing that vote and apologizing for waiting until now to do the right thing. Definitely NOT "Profiles in Courage". Definitely not.

[Demaholic]

2. No,

they just see now that none of these alone hold their own merit for war, it's when the pie is cut that you see what flavor it is.

...looks like crow for Georgie boy this week!

[indepat]

3. The Congress should never have given W broad authority to do as he wishes

for that is exactly what he has done: the Congress became, in effect, a subordinate arm of the Executive Branch by marching in mindless lockstep IMHO, to the piper's every tune.

[welshTerrier2]

4. congratulations! you've discovered the dead elephant ...

i wonder if what they really mean isn't that they've learned there were no WMD but rather the realization that bush was a liar and couldn't be trusted ...

if that's the case, and it may well be, how sad is it that they relied on bush in the first place? looking beyond the WMD lies, in the end of ends, they trusted bush to act responsibly and to competently prosecute the war if war was needed ...

that's a very sad business, isn't it??

[kwolf68]

5. So...

When the war "begins going good" and the fickle 'Muricans decide they like cowboy bloodlust again will these politicians then go back to being pro-war.

There were millions of people back then telling them YOU ARE WRONG...There was NO threat emminent (sp), yet they decide to tip the can a certain way that further entrenched the Shrub and turned this nation into the biggest bunch of jingoistic idiots since Nuremburg.

I have no respect for any of those people...NONE. They can all goto hell, because we can't count on them when the chips are down anyway. YEA, I'd rather have them that the Repukes, but they aren't that much different sometimes.

[welshTerrier2]

6. clearly their judgment was very poor at best ...

but what i wanted to do in this thread was formally put on the record that many of the justifications we were provided are NOT an adequate justification for war according to these recent "converts" ...

let's be sure to remind them of these things when the next great "casus belli" (i.e. cause for war") rolls around ... we should be seeing the next one anyday now ...

[npincus]

7. who are these sheep-turned-lions?

[heidiho]

8. Everything I know today I knew then from reading DU

My sister said recently "how did you already know all of this two years ago?

My answer is this website - the truth prevails here. If we could know it, why couldn't they?

[BeFree]

9. Quite a few

Yeah, there were a few Dems who screwed up. Are we to throw them out now? They had a real tough political vote and, yes, some thought saddam was worth taking out. Besides that, consider that the lies they were told in the closed door meetings had not a small effect.

Yeah, they screwed up. But what about the pubs? They marched in lockstep and few, to this day, have fessed-up. When the election rolls around, give the dems a hard time in the primaries, fine. But in the meantime our arrows should be pointed at *, and pub congress critters.

Cut our people some slack.

[welshTerrier2]

10. nice job - you completely misunderstood my post !!

the OP said absolutely nothing about "screwing up" ... it's point was NOT to criticize those who switched their thoughts about voting for war regardless of what i might actually think on that issue ...

the intent of the post was to shine some light on some of the other justifications, i.e. beyond the WMD argument, that had been used to support the war ...

if Saddam did gas his people or commit atrocities, those who now say they should not have voted for war have effectively ruled out that justification for war should similar circumstances arise ... i just wanted to note that on the record ...

your narrow, binary view that everything written is either an attack or a defense of these Democrats completely missed the point of the OP ...

the post is about defining legitimate justifications for war; it's not about criticizing Democrats ...

cut me some slack ...

[BeFree]

11. squeeze me!

My narrow, binary view (wtf is a binary view?) is always alert for disparaging remarks on the stupid dems who voted for IWR. They were stupid, they screwed up. But they had some reasons - some bad, some not so good.

I guess my point is that we should be lighting a fire under the pukes. If you don't think so, just say so.

BTW: I don't think there was any legitimate justification for the invasion, maybe that's why I missed your point?

[welshTerrier2]

14. "lighting a fire under the pukes"

absolutely!!! and under the Dems too!!!

you wrote: "I don't think there was any legitimate justification for the invasion, maybe that's why I missed your point?"

i couldn't agree more ... many of us "believed" Ritter when he said there were no WMD in Iraq ... we were also highly suspicious of bush's motives ... the Democrats, to this day, REFUSE to question bush's motives for war ... it's the ultimate weakness in everything they've done ...

<rant on>
and we had other very strong arguments against the war that those who voted for war chose to ignore ... i wrote and called and wrote and called that toppling Saddam would create a huge "power vacuum" in Iraq and that the instability would make things worse, not better ... i didn't "know" this; i believed it and i never heard a credible post invasion analysis that addressed this point ... NEVER !!!!!

no one should have voted for war unless they had at least a reasonable basis to conclude that the post-war situation would be better, not worse ... clearly, they had no such basis ...

and finally, the standard for war had always been "imminent threat" ... how in the hell did anyone conclude, EVEN IF SADDAM HAD WMD, that Saddam had the power to do anything at all??? he was being watched day and night ... he had spent 10 years under the no-fly zones ... during Powell's UN presentation, we supposedly had all sorts of listening devices and satellite photos of seemingly every conversation Saddam's Generals had ... all this and Saddam was going to build a bunch of nukes that the weapons inspectors didn't believe existed and hook them up to some kind of super-duper aircraft and fly all the way across from Baghdad to NYC to drop his payload and make little mushroom clouds???? and Democrats thought this "imminent threat" was credible????????

does this really make sense to anyone???? it wasn't about "knowing" Saddam didn't have WMD ... it was about realizing that bush was full of shit and shouldn't be trusted ... it was about knowing there was no plan to restore stability if Saddam was toppled ... and it was knowing that 10 years under the big US thumb left Saddam weak and pathetic and unable to attack the US ...

but Democrats froze up under the pressures of 9/11 fear politics ... i'm afraid that's why they voted as they did ... </rant off>

[Donna Zen]

13. Tough political vote?

Most of them live in Blue states where their mail was overwhelmingly anti-war.

No one is excusing the republican war-mongers.

I've cut them slack; I just won't cut them a check.

I've been after bush for 5 long years, and you know what? I sure would have appreciated their support during that time. Instead, I've been labeled as a "radical leftist" by these very Democrats.

[BeFree]

15. Yeah, me too: a radical leftist.

You do know we are dealing with a public that is full of dumbasses who would just as soon nuke the middle east. They ARE dangerous people.

Given the lynch-mob type of mentality present in the US those days, and the revenge motive along with the media selling the BS, yes, it was a tough political vote. Had I been voting, this would have crossed my mind: Would it be political suicide to vote no? I would have not caved in to politics, but that's why I never would make a good politician, eh?

It's a bad scene, all around, and when we vote in the primaries we can tell our dems that. Until then, I think we need to focus on the real enemies, because we would never vote for them anyway, right?

[Donna Zen]

17. 23 Senators voted NO

None of them lost their jobs because of that vote.

[BeFree]

18. No, and lets hope they don't, but...

Wouldn't bother me a bit if those who did vote yes lost in the primaries, as long as they are replaced with dems.

But looking further into the picture you have presented, IIRC, most of those voting yes were up for re-election. Daschle, comes to mind as one. Of course, he lost. Good riddance?

Look, if you want to roast the bad dems for their yes votes, fine. Just remember you are spending your time and energy not on the damned enemies who would always vote yes and never for dems, but on those who tend to usually vote for dems.

[Donna Zen]

26. I'm not roasting them

I just want to keep this in perspective.

There are times when you stand up and do the right thing. That's leadership. Those Democrats are fine where they are, but I don't accept their stories. I'm glad they are now saying they wouldn't have voted they way they did. Nevertheless, they left us hanging at a time when we needed them. I have the feeling that they would do it again. And more over, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that once again, their new positions have less to do with leadership, than it has to do with playing games.

Feingold was in a tough election in a state that doesn't necessarily vote Dem. He stood up. My representatives vote no, and although Maine has voted Dem. recently, it doesn't always. In the red half of my state, the Dem. running for a first term in the house, was very clear about his position against the war. He won.

Maine has one of the highest per-capita numbers of retired military of any state. Yes, they took a chance, but they told the truth.

I happen to favor people who put this country, our country, First.

[welshTerrier2]

28. "I have the feeling that they would do it again."

until they extricate us from the mess they helped make in Iraq, "I have the feeling that they are still doing it."

[Donna Zen]

32. War Civil Rights Justice

There are many votes and many decisions that come about, where will the Feinsteins be the next time their country needs them?

Having a "D" after your name is fine if it all it means is keeping/gaining a majority. But what does it mean when the going gets tough? This isn't about forgiveness or anger, this is about "trust." psssst we controlled the Senate when they let this piece-o-shit get voted on.

[welshTerrier2]

35. Feinstein: am i reading too much into this??

this was a response i posted in another thread that included Feinstein's statement about yesterday's Closed Senate session and the "special committee" she's on with Rockefeller and Levin:

subject: Feinstein: "misuse"; Reid: "manufacturing and manipulating"

perhaps it was just semantics, but Feinstein's definition of her charter on this special committee differs significantly from the words Reid used yesterday ...

Feinstein said "I believe that the American people deserve to know whether that intelligence was misused by the Administration in building up the case for war."

"misuse" allows for the possibility of "not using the evidence correctly but doing so in an UNINTENTIONAL manner" ... in this context, the investigation could potentially be limited to mere incompetence ... the conclusion could be that evidence was mistakenly used incorrectly (i.e. evidence was "misused")

Reid's use of the term "manufacturing and manipulating" clearly implies INTENT ...

Feinstein's definition allows the possibility that the investigation might do little more than point to ERRORS; under Reid's definition, the investigation could readily point to CRIMES ...

so ... what do you think? ... just nit-picky semantic oversight or shifting the committee's charter just a few important notches to the right???

[Donna Zen]

47. Post script: Jobs and the Human Condition

As I wrote last night about those in power letting us down once again, I never thought that it would be so soon. From a thread that is quickly falling from this page:

Only 10 dems vote to strip H-1B increase from budget bill.

This is a very big deal because it means a lower wage scale, lower revenues, and less opportunity for our children's futures. H-1B targets mid to high-end technical jobs.

[TayTay]

12. I think some people voted for it because of 9/11

The country had war fever. They wanted someone to go out and kick some ass for pure revenge over what happened in this country on 9/11. The President made a case that Iraq was a threat. (We now know that Bush wanted this war since day one. The American people did not know this however, and I don't think the bulk of Congress knew this either.)

We had war fever. Arguments were posed that sounded plausible enough that this war was sold on various grounds that constitute 'keeping us safe.' The war fever lasted about 2 years, more or less. Now it is fading. I don't think there was really any way to have derailed this. The whole 'knowing what we know now' argument is somewhat moot since it involves reason and reflection and the willingness to admit that we were wrong. A lot of people who were for this war (in Congress and among the general population) had to have the awfulness of war happen in order to see that it was wrong and false. It seems that we are condemned to go through this type of cycle from time to time. I think it's human nature. I seriously doubt that we can ever derail this process. It is ingrained in our nature as human beings. (And we are not the only country to ever get war fever. We just fooled ourselves into thinking that after Vietnam we would never again engage in a war of choice. The only thing I can absolutely guarantee is that we will do so again sometime in the future.)

I don't think anything could have stopped the march to war. War fever is very powerful and doesn't respond to reason and logic and an appeal to common sense.

I'm sorry if this doesn't pick a particular reason. I personally think that WMD was the best PR money could buy at that point in time. If it didn't work to convince 51% of the population to support a war of aggression, then some other lie would have done the trick. It doesn't really matter anyway, they were all lies.

[NCarolinawoman]

20. If they had "war fever", going into Afghanistan should have been enough.

[TayTay]

36. No. It wasn't enough.

It wasn't shown on TV. It didn't involve enough blood and it wasn't vengeful enough. It didn't slack the thirst of enough people who wanted 'an eye for an eye.' Those people are a big force in America and we deny that and pretend that all people are reasonable and logical and respond to well-thought out arguments at our peril. Some people just want to kick some ass.

I seem to remember Dan Rather making a speech in London after 9/11 in which he explained the fawning docility of the American press in the build-up to war. They were afraid they would be lynched for being anti-patriotic. He mentioned that journalists didn't want to get 'flaming tires put around their necks.' Yeah, it was sort of like that around here. We had temporarily lost our minds. (And again, we are hardly the first country to have this happen. Heck, it's not even the 1st or 2nd time in American history. Remember the Maine!)

We need accountability now. We need Congress to take up it's necessary job of providing oversight and bringing mistakes to light. That is supposed to be their job. That is what we have to do going forward, we have to deal with what is.

If anyone is sitting around waiting to be congratulated on being right that the build-up to the war was wrong and was based on lies, you're going to have a very long wait. This will never happen. Ever. In most countries where people have gone to war and lost or gone to war only to have it turn out to be a mistake, the people who warned about this before the dying began were never praised. They were never thanked for being right. They served as a living reminder that a mistake was made and were, with few exceptions, scorned and marginalized. Nobody wants to be around a constant reminder of a mistake. (Tell me, was there a 'You were right' parade for protesters of the Vietnam War? Or did the opposition turn being right about that war into a political brush that painted liberals as unpatriotic and un-American for more than 30 years?)

We, as Democrats, have to find a way to turn this argument from a 'who was right and who was wrong' discussion into a 'how do we prevent future wars of choice' argument. That's about all we can do with this discussion. Being right can be used against you and used to punish you, unless you somehow find a way to deflect it.

[welshTerrier2]

37. "how do we prevent future wars of choice"

you've hit on exactly what the OP is about ... all the non-WMD arguments we heard about Saddam's cruelty and gassing his people would now seem like inadequate justifications according to those who now say they would never have voted for war if they knew then what they know now ...

i have to presume that what they mean by the phrase "what they know now" pertains specifically to the absence of WMD ... it's less clear whether they mean that they now know, but didn't then, that bush is a liar and can't be trusted ...

i think it's this last point that raises the greatest frustration from many people here about the "new converts" ... i don't think the issue is so much that all the "we 'knew' we shouldn't attack Iraq" people are looking for congratulations ... i can tell you that's the last thing i care about ... i think the reason so many are raising the issue by saying things like "if i 'knew', and i'm no expert, how come they didn't know" is because they can't understand, beyond selfish political consideratins, why anyone would have trusted bush and supported his efforts in any way whatsoever ...

your description about the blood lust for revenge among Americans was dead on the money ... i'm afraid logical issues like bush having no plan to address the post-invasion power vacuum and the new precedent of pre-emptive war had to take a backseat to playing it politically safe ... hardly the kind of stuff that heros are made of ...

[TayTay]

45. I am going to sound like a broken record but

(By that I mean that this just keeps coming up everywhere, sigh!) We MUST have a responsible press corp that informs the citizenry of what is going on. Rather was intimidated into silence. (It may not have been a complete silence, but it was enough. And he was by no means the only one intimidated.)

Corporate control of the media is killing democracy. The whole reason that a Free Press is accorded it's own protection in the Constitution is because the Founders knew how critical it was to policing the law-making process. The New York Times (and other major papers) rolled over and played dead. They did not criticize the build-up to the war. They had some criticism of the facts in the case for war, but not enough. The TV networks were abysmal, they should be charged with 'dereliction of duty.' They betrayed the public trust and responsibility placed in them. (Esp. the Times. Are they not called, 'the paper of record'?) (Gawd, I'm too heartsick to go over the whole Judy Miller fiasco, but she protected the Govt against the whistle-blowers and the NYTimes did nothing about it. Shame, Shame, Shame.)

The only way to counter this type of 'war fever' and the automatic 'rally around the flag' sentiment it arouses is with a free and open discussion. In no way, shape or form did that happen. There are groups on the internet and in discussion forums that know parts of the 'real story' and can make pretty accurate guesses about the rest. Where was that discussion elsewhere? Every friggin network was afraid to openly discuss dissent. (Instead they commissioned special music and showed even more flags as part of their news sets.)

It is the right and responsibility of citizens to hold elected officials 'feet to the fire' on votes. But, if information is not getting out, if the drum beat is constant that dissent equals something close to treason, and the press refuses to do it's job, then it's just nearly impossible to stop it. (The failure was way more than the vote on IWR. Way, way more. The credible apologies that I have seen acknowledge this. There is more that went wrong than just the WMD discussion.)

And this is a dead-on observation:
i'm afraid logical issues like bush having no plan to address the post-invasion power vacuum and the new precedent of pre-emptive war had to take a backseat to playing it politically safe ... hardly the kind of stuff that heros are made of ...

Who kicked ass in the media over this? The atmosphere that allowed this atrocity to happen goes beyond WMD. It is partly a 'how could you trust them' thing to a 'why are we so set-up for war' thing. That goes beyond WMD.

[Donna Zen]

16. You missed my kitchen rant tonight:

But Mr. Z didn't. He was laughing so hard he almost hit the floor.

Living in the middle of the woods...seriously, in the middle of the woods, how in the hell did I know that bush was lying? All I have is Google to set me free. And as Mr. Z chortled: "With dial-up, don't forget you only have dial-up!"

Bottom line: it not just the lies, the phony intelligence, the illegality of the entire concept of invading based on a "maybe Saddam's got weapons," invading Iraq was a bad, really bad, and stupid idea. If 911 anything had a message, it was an illustration of the failure of US policy in the Gulf region. Opening a Pandora's box with a war was the dumbest plan and sure to lead to the point where we are now.

Q: Do elected congress critters leave their brains in the lobbiests wallets?

Witness: Right before the war began and four days after Powell's pitiful appearance at the UN, a student asked me how I felt about the war. I avoided the question, because it really has nothing to do with teaching Hamlet. Anyway, I did finally answer, and I pointed out that there were many options between sending Saddam flowers and candy, and bombing the people of Iraq. That while I would never chose to live under the government of Saddam, that there were constructive things that could be done that would certainly undermine Saddam.

Then I said that the invasion would be quick, but that American blood would slowly soak the sands of Iraq for years to come.

The student was aghast! What? Not support the war!

Many months later, after the guy had graduated, he returned to the school. He saw me in the hall and gave me an enormous hug saying: you were right. How did you know?

Google is our friend. Someone should explain to the congress how it works.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "Pandora's box"

that just says it all ...

Kerry made it a significant part of his campaign to talk about "bush's failure to have a plan to win the peace" ... very articulate ... very insightful ... finger on the pulse ... spot on ...

i'm serious about this ... that is the ultimate idiocy of ever having voted to give bush any tangible or intangible Congressional authorization to go to war ... the answer to bush when he requested the IWR should not have only focussed on "the evidence"; it should also have focussed on the post-invasion "plan" ...

many of us, whether we are experts or NOT, believed that toppling Saddam would create a huge power vacuum in the Middle East ... it didn't matter whether we were right or we were wrong; what did matter was that the issue was raised loudly and clearly and too many Democrats, lacking any post-invasion plan from bush, still went along with the resolution ...

no, we did not "predict the insurgency"; i certainly didn't ... my actual concern was that Iraq would not be able to defend itself against Iran ... I worried we would have to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely if we destroyed Iraq's defensive capabilities ... I'm no international strategist; i'm no defense expert; i certainly knew very little about Iraq at the time ... but even still, I was able to at least ask some good questions ...

and what did the Democrats who voted for the IWR ask? did they ask about the post-invasion plan? did they ask about the timeline? did they ask about the budget? the answer is that some of them asked some of these questions ... they did NOT get answers though ... bush refused to be specific about his plans ... and even still, some Democrats gave him the go-ahead ...

and Pandora's box was opened ... and it's still open ... and no Democrat in the Senate is demanding that it be shut immediately ...

and that is the end of my "bedroom rant" ...

[Donna Zen]

23. "Pandora's box"

They were told exactly this, with exactly that phrase, during the congressional testimony. They were also told exactly this and more behind closed doors.

That is why, while I'm glad to see this flurry of anti-war activity, I'm not ready to raise my hands in the air and shout "Amen."

See that smoke covering the Eastern horizon? That's our healthcare, our education and our future clouding the sun.

See that cold ocean? That 's the tears of thousands moving onto our shores.

And for what?

[welshTerrier2]

24. you teach English?

you've got the power of poetry in your words ...

under our "keep your eye on the grape" heading, all this fury about demanding investigations is a wonderful business; but the war goes on and on and on ... completely unabated ...

and i just keep making my little dots ... and our reps still refuse to connect them ...

the energy is great now; bush grows weaker and weaker ... the tidal wave of public opinion against this war is overwhelming ... and still the Democrats call for 12 more months ... 15 ... do i hear a "let's keep it rolling into the 2008 campaign" ???

yeah, tears of thousands moving onto our shores ... maybe the tidal wave of hope i was seeing is no more than that ...

[Donna Zen]

31. Hope

the last thing to fly out of the box.

dots...often lead directly to white-wash...the inside agreements...and always the money.

I'm a thousand times prouder of the people who have remained on these boards and fought the fight, than any sudden converts.

BTW, Jimmy Carter was great tonight although he didn't call for an immediate pull-out. There's always that. Me thinks we've met the mother of all "tar-babies." We are one with it.

Tragedy. Clark's riff in L.A. He said that when he looks at America, he sees a tragedy. People have decided that all politics is corrupt and so they've disengaged.

Hope. Will it just keep us going, or will it stem the tide?

[NCarolinawoman]

25. I am not a total pacifist, but I used my own logic to know I was against

this war. Here were my thoughts at the time:

When Tito died, Yugoslavia fell apart. Serbs against Bosnians, Serbs against Kosovos, and who knows what else.

I knew Sadam was a secular evil thug, who nevertheless kept Iraq together. I also felt that Osama, being a religious fanatic, probably hated secular Sadam and vice-versa. If Sadam is defeated, we get a chaotic vacumn in an already incendiary part of the world, and we get genocide like in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we also get a breeding ground for terrorists.

Also, before the IWR they had already identified the 911 hijcakers as being mostly Saudies who were radical Islamic Fundamentalists....so I figured secular Sadam had nothing to do with 911, and wasn't suddenly out to get us.

This was my own reasoning for being against this war. If I can figure this little bit out, why in the world coundn't some of those senators figure it out.

I have no respect for them.

[welshTerrier2]

27. the bottom line ...

welcome to DU, NCarolinawoman !!! got some friends in Chapel Hill ...

the bottom line, i hate to say, is that i think too many Dems caved because of the 9/11 pressure ... i think they worried they just couldn't handle the political risks if they "challenged bush" during the post-9/11 days of national crisis ...

they knew all the stuff about the Saudis and 9/11 and they knew all about power vacuums too ... these guys had tons of information ... they just made the wrong call when the money, and lives, were on the line ...

added on edit: btw, i am not a pacifist either ... in fact, i think we have to have a strong national defense ...

[NCarolinawoman]

34. I agree, welsh Terrier2, I think they figured out what I

figured out, but they caved. Bush was riding high and going to war was the popular thing to do. They had to get on the bandwagon. That does not show leadership to me.

God bless those 23 senators who stood up for their principles.

(Oh, I have several relatives who live in Chapelhill).

[Donna Zen]

33. Welcome to DU

As for your question: "If I can figure this little bit out, why in the world coundn't some of those senators figure it out."

I think that they did.

[ContraBass Black]

21. I did know then what I know now.

I was a child in high school, and I KNEW. I literally told thousands of people too.

[welshTerrier2]

22. young folks and politics

it's great to know even high school kids take an interest in these critical issues ...

it's even better that you made the right call on this insane war ...

keep up the good work, ContraBass Black !!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. They are now "rethinking" their positions because of the polls.

Just as they took their original postions because of the polls. All the rest of the rationalizations for backing the invasion, and now the occupation, have as much credence as one of Bush's "stay the course" press conferences.

[welshTerrier2]

30. that just kills me ...

bush's poll numbers sure do make things easier, don't they ??

maybe if we can get support for immediate withdrawal up to about 80% they'll agree to represent us ... i remember not too many months ago being told on DU that the "immediate withdrawal crowd" was the extreme leftist fringe that represented less than 1% of DU and even less in the Democratic Party ...

don't see statements like that much anymore, do ya ???

we're getting there ... we're in the heavy majority now and they know it ... they're clawing and scratching and playing little reindeer games looking for the best "political line" ... someday maybe they'll learn that the best policies make the best politics ... and someday they'll catch on that a mega-trend among their constituents might be worth fighting for ...

we'll wake them up ... we just have to keep growing and speaking out ...

[I_am_Spartacus]

38. It will be good if this whole Libby thing results in a presumption against

voting for War Resolutions.

Unfortunately, American history proves the opposite. Usually, Democrat or Republican, oppostion to war resolutions is a good way to lose the next election.

The IWR already gave politicians a little room to oppose it (depending on how blue your state was) because it was Bush asking for it.

It will be nice if Bush has taken war resolutions so far into the territory of lies that from hereon politicians will be asking presidents to make clearer cases with a presumption that war is founded on lies and that you have to cut through them to get at the truth.

[welshTerrier2]

39. "politicians will be asking presidents to make clearer cases"

and hopefully the press and the American people as well ...

it goes beyond war too ... there are all sorts of nasty things our government does like toppling democratically elected regimes in sovereign nations, imposing sanctions on countries that hurts (or kills) innocent citizens and setting up puppet regimes to act in the interests of Big Oil and other trans-national corporations ...

we will not survive long in this world if our people don't pay attention to the actions of their government ... we Americans, living in what is now the most powerful country in the world, have the greatest responsibility to ensure that that power is used responsibly ... we owe that to our own citizens who are all too often called upon to lay down their live for illicit, commercial purposes and we owe that to the greater global community who end up suffering the most from our failure to provide oversight ...

[callady]

42. What's wrong with this picture?

The world's largest hyper power claims to be threatened by a small nation in mesopotamia whose adverserial neighbors state openly they are not feeling threatened.

This small nation had its infrastructure blown back into the 13th century a few years back by said hyperpower.

This small nation endured continuous bombings and brutal sanctions by and at the behest of hyperpower.

This small nation had the omst strict weapons inspections levied against it by worlds international body.

Now:
Highest level political reps of hyperpower stated that the Prez and his admin. fooled them into thinking this small nation was a looming menace.

The highest reps of "opposition" party stated that "had they known then...."

Do these same Senators not understand how geopolitical affairs operate even though they are involved in them at the highest level day after day for years and years?

Are we to believe that they were truly duped?
Are we to believe that their paymasters were not fully expecting them to vote for the IWR?
Are we to believe that they did not understand how vitally important Iraq is as a source of energy and as a strategic locale?
Are we to believe that they did not know the Tigris, Euphrates, Greater and Lesser Zab flow through Iraq in a parched region of the world where other nations desire control of those waterways and acquifers?

Yes they were lied to.
They were willing to accept those lies, and they knew they were lies, because they are complicit.

[welshTerrier2]

44. there are imperialists and then there are imperialists ...

excellent post, callady !!

i'll be honest ... i haven't really made up my mind what the driving force was behind those Democrats who voted for war ... and they did VOTE FOR WAR ... they weren't voting to try to get bush to go to the UN or to try some more diplomacy or to give the weapons inspectors another chance ... if that's what they wanted, they should have voted AGAINST the IWR ... then, if they were satisfied that bush did all he could and that they were sure he was calling for war as a LAST RESORT, then, perhaps a vote for war could have been justified ... i still would never have supported this war with bush in office ...

what they did do though is make a bunch of non-binding meek suggestions about how they would prefer to have the process work and then they left the whole damned thing 100% up to bush ... the President can bomb the fuck out of Iraq "at his sole discretion" ... thanks for nothing !!!

still, what's not clear to me is exactly why they voted as they did ... i somewhat lean toward accepting the argument that it was pure political cowardice ... they were afraid of being hit with the 9/11 backlash ...

perhaps i'm naive but i still am weighing the idea that Democrats are complicit in an imperialistic oil grab ... i don't discount the possibility for a minute ... it's just not clear to me that i have enough information to form that belief ... sadly, it's also not clear to me where the American people would stand on the issue of "stealing" foreign oil if they believed we really needed more oil to sustain ourselves and were unable to afford it or even find a country willing to sell it to us ... on this one, i'm still in the agnostic camp ... i'm just not sure what to believe ...

[Donna Zen]

46. Why does it have to be limited to one reason?

The why of all of this is individual and includes a wide spectrum of reasons. Nevertheless, we could group those reasons under some origanizing catagories:

1) Agreed with the concept that the end of the cold war presented the US with an opportunity for military dominance that would translate into economic dominance for the forseeable future. The Dominance Theory or PNAC

2) Political resume boosting for a presidential run. Democrat 2.0

3) Fear of losing a their job (only applies to seriously challenged Dems. Blue state Dem need not apply.) The Perks of War

4) Dumb as dirt regarding geopolitical politics/foreign affairs, and thus needing the "macho" cover yer arse. Que es mas macho? War or Peace?

5) Pressure from their best military contracting buddies. Friends of Destruction.

6) Finally, those who figured that the path of least resistance, and the path of the DLC, would get them the hell of town because there was money be to raised. Fundraising out the wazoo.

I'm sure that many here can come up with better and different catagories, but my point is that there need not be one reason. And, any individuals reason is not confined to one catagory or in equal porportions to more than one. I'm convinced that Liebermann is almost 100% a Dominance Theory while Biden is a mix of #1, #4, and #6. (note: I disagree with Biden that he is a foreign policy guru, since he either gets it wrong, or gets lucky and repeats the lines of someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.)

Anyway, that's my theory--for now.

[freestyle]

41. I clearly remember Rep. Pete Stark in the House debate.

He said he did not trust bush or the administration. That was really the foundational issue. If you know that they lie about everything, then you know they are lying about reasons for war and you vote no. It is difficult to accept that the country is being run by a pack of liars, and worse, but once you do opposition becomes almost automatic.

[welshTerrier2]

43. "That was really the foundational issue."

that's exactly right !!!

we are now hearing from all the supporters of the "apologists" ... they chastise us for saying that Democrats who voted for the IWR should have known better ...

well, how sad is it that these misguided soles, who enabled bush to do what he's done in Iraq, trusted him enough to give him the legitimacy he asked for by signing on to the IWR ???

ultimately, their choice should have NOT depended on WMD evidence or anthrax or Niger documents ... ultimately, you had a PNAC-driven global imperialist pushing for war at any cost ... and they just couldn't, or wouldn't, see that ... that is indeed the "foundational issue" ...