Edwards and Clinton were for the war before they were against it.

[nebula]

If Edwards (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) ever gets the nomination, you better get used to hearing that phrase/talking point in the mainstream media.

Because Repubs and network pundits alike would no doubt be repeating it non-stop 24/7 like they did with Kerry. You would never hear the end of it.

[Crankie Avalon]

1. 90% of Americans were for this war when it was first cooked up...

...so Edwards and Clinton will have a lot of company amongst voters.

[nebula]

4. You're exxagerating

That might be true of the public's initial support for the Afghanistan war.

But more like 40-50% of the public were initially supportive of the invasion of Iraq.

[Crankie Avalon]

7. Actually I think it was about 70%. 90% was his approval rating around the time he first...

...brought up Iraq (i.e., shortly after 9/11).

[FrenchieCat]

24. According to polls, the public were not in a hurry to go to war in Iraq....

War With Iraq: Americans In No Hurry
Oct. 7, 2002

U.S. SHOULD:

Now
Take military action soon 30%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 63%

2 Weeks Ago
Take military action soon 36%
Give U.N. weapons inspectors time 57%

Support for getting U.S. allies on board before any military action has remained constant. Asked whether Iraq presents such a clear danger that the U.S. needs to act now, even without allied backing, or whether the U.S. needs to wait for such backing, Americans expressed the desire to wait.


U.S. SHOULD:

Now
Act now 29%
Wait for allies 65%

9/02
Act now 31%
Wait for allies 61%

8/02
Act now 24%
Wait for allies 68%


Americans also overwhelmingly believe President George W. Bush should get the approval of Congress before taking any military action - a feeling that is unchanged from two weeks ago. Today, 70% say he should get approval. Two weeks ago 65% said he should and 31% said Bush make the decision on military action for himself.

SHOULD BUSH GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL ON IRAQ?

Now
Get approval 70%
Decide for himself 28%

Two weeks ago
Get approval 65%
Decide for himself 31%


And before giving that approval, Congress should ask more questions, according to most Americans. 51% say Congress has not asked enough; an increase from the number who said so in September. Just 17% say Congress has asked the right amount already and 20% say it has asked too many questions.

HAS CONGRESS ASKED ENOUGH QUESTIONS?

10/02
Asked too many 20%
Asked the right amount 17%
Not asked enough 51%

09/02
Asked too many 22%
Asked the right amount 16%
Not asked enough 44%

Americans continue to believe that war is inevitable, but slightly fewer now believe the situation may be resolved with fighting. Today, 70% believe the military will end up fighting against Iraq, while 78% said this in September.

WILL U.S. END UP FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Now
Yes 70%
No 24%

09/02
Yes 78%
No 17%

snip

BUSH'S APPROACH TO WAR

Despite his statements over the weekend about the pressing need to disarm Saddam Hussein, Americans believe Bush is more interested in removing Saddam Hussein than in removing the weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. Americans also believe Bush is being somewhat influenced by his father's experience with Hussein. However, most see Bush as wanting to work with the United Nations and NOT moving too quickly towards war.

BUSH: MORE INTERESTED IN REMOVING HUSSEIN OR WEAPONS?
Removing Hussein 53%
Removing weapons of mass destruction 29%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml

[LynneSin]

2. But it's a different world now

Because alot of people are starting to cross sides and go against the war even though they original voted not for war but a resolution that gave Bush leeway to work with the UN in order to get his war.

[Buzz Clik]

3. No, Kerry was the one who made that comment.

He stated that he voted for the war before he voted against it. The media gleefully grabbed that ridiculous (and, sadly, true) comment and beat it like a drum.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. There was no "vote for the war"

What was being voted on was an appropriations bill, IIRC

[lapfog_1]

13. Let's not rewrite history ourselves...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

it's a bit more (and less) than an appropriation bill.

For one thing, it was predicated (and includes the language) on a bunch of lies and half truths spun by the administration. Congress has to rely on the administration (CIA, DOD) for intelligence... which had already been cherry picked to support all of the Neocon assertions. In addition, it included language that only allowed for the President to conduct military operations if the Iraqis refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. Just before invasion, the Iraqis were, apparently, cooperating (though they themselves had dragged their feet on cooperation, leaving everyone with the impression that they HAD WMDs). I, personally, think Saddam wanted to leave that impression to intimidate his neighbors (Iran) and his own populace (Kurds). But he had been afraid of America acting on various UN resolutions a decade earlier and HAD completely destroyed his WMDs.

[Mass]

15. No, the vote that we are talking about in this subthread is NOT the IWR.

It is the vote for the $ 87B. It is possible that the person who posted the comment is confused, but the comment he is referring to is about an emergency approppriation, not the IWR.

[lapfog_1]

23. Yes, you are right...

This was the bill that Kerry was for before he was against it (as I recall it had some rather obnoxious amendments added which caused Kerry to vote against it).

Course, it was spun in the media as "Kerry was FOR the Iraq war before he was AGAINST the Iraq war".

Sorry. I believe that Kerry voted for the IWR.

[BlueEyedSon]

42. Yes, I am always right. About 90% of the time. Except when I'm Left

[xchrom]

16. if ''activists'' do nothing else -- raging at the media re: the facts

is the single most important thing we can do.

admittedly it's like chipping away at granite -- but it needs to be done and with out let up.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Indeed, indeed.

[oasis]

6. Kerry insisted that the war costs be paid. The media screwed him. Again.nt

[Buzz Clik]

9. I'll agree that the media let his swiftboating happen with no filter. But this? No.

Kerry baked himself with his own words.

[Mass]

12. Kerry never said that. The comment was about an additionnal funding in 2004.

He said that he voted for the funding in a first version, then against it in a second.

Sure, his comment was poorly phrased (as happens to all of us once in a while), but it is not at all what you said.

[Buzz Clik]

17. I can't quote what Kerry said, but I was listening at the time.

The intentional and undeniable impression he gave everyone (including those of us who groaned in pain) was that he voted for the war initially and then voted against it.

Considering how few in Congress voted against that goddam war, it will be hard to find someone who can say otherwise (including Hillary). But Kerry had a special gift for saying things in a way to make us all hold our heads in anticipation of the blowback.

[Mass]

20. As I said, this is NOT what he said was not that. You may have misunderstood though.

But Kerry did NOT say that at any point, and it would have been stupid because there was ONLY ONE VOTE FOR THE IWR.

As for the rest, your opinion is your opinion, and let's just say we disagree deeply on that.

[Cameron27]

21. Here's the quote

In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.

"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.

Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml

[karynnj]

29. Unless you were at a campaign event, you were NOT listening at the time

Kerry was asked by a heckler why he voted against the funding - and he gave a good detailed explanation. Whe he was asked the question again - by another heckler - he said he had answered that and that "he had voted for the funding before he voted against it." He shouldn't have summarized it - because taken out of context it was used against him.

No one other than Kerry had every word out of his mouth taped for months. In the primaries, other candidates had statements theyt had problems with too.

[flpoljunkie]

37. Not voting for $89 billion was serious political mistake which the R's mercilessly used against him.

His co-sponsor of the first version of the bill was Joe Biden, right? Biden had the good sense to vote for the funding when his and Kerry's bill failed to pass. After all, Kerry has since voted for all the additional supplemental funding for the occupation in Iraq, has he not?

[karynnj]

28. He DID NOT SAY THAT

He said that he voted for the $87 billion (paid for by rolling back the tax increases and with oversight) before he voted against the $87 billion in the bill without those provisions.

Kerry did vote to give Bush the authorization when Bush said it was not a vote for war AND he (not Edwards or either Clinton) spoke out against the war asking Bush to give the inspections and diplomacy more time. Clinton says she voted for the same reason as Kerry said he did, while Edwards was more pro-war then.

[LittleClarkie]

48. He voted for the $87 billion when it was funded, against when it was not.

It was the $87 billion he was talking about not the IWR.

See, it doesn't have to be the truth for the media to repeat it. Hence, truth or not, anything that gets traction against the leading Dem will be repeated ad nauseum, though perhaps not that exact phrase.

Any Senator has those kinds of votes in their portfolio. Voting for something under certain circumstances and against them under other circumstances, such as when an amendment has been tacked on. That's why Senators have a difficult road to hoe. They have to explain fairly complicated reasons for their votes when the American public wants to hear something fairly simple.

[nebula]

8. 'Centrist' Dems are so easily portrayed as flip-floppers

Because that's what they actually are!

Nothing but opportunists.

[stellanoir]

10. The vote was not for the war.

It was to authorize the pRes to use force after receiving UN approval. * NEVER got UN approval. Hussein let the inspectors back in.

Yikes this simplistic and inaccurate revisionist historical crap drive me bananas. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2763628

[nebula]

19. The resolution was for giving Bush a blank check to go to war

solely at his personal descretion.

Edwards and Clinton knew exactly what they were doing when they voted in favor of it.

[stellanoir]

25. So you think the ignored caveat of "with UN approval"

has no import or significance whatsoever?

[geek tragedy]

27. With Bush and Cheney in power, no. eom

[stellanoir]

30. Well obviously it didn't matter to them but I meant as rebuttal for

this idiotic IWR vote, the terms of which were in no way adhered to.

[GreenArrow]

36. it's superceded by

the discretion of the President. He is the Decider. He gets to say when enough is enough. If he said that we had given the UN a chance, then that's all he has to say.

It was a blank check all the way, and it's enough of a blank check that if W concludes that Iran or Syria had something to do with the events of 9/11 (whether true or not -- they've already shown that such considerations do not matter) it will cover dealing with them as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. If the choice is between a Democrat

who either was not careful enough to prevent being used by Bush in his run up to war, or who actually thought that it was what America had to do at the time but since has completely renounced their former views, against a Republican who never stopped believing that the United States had to invade Iraq, the Democrat would still have the advantage on Iraq. Kerry either won or almost won in 2004 depending on how you count the votes, and much more of the public back then thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Stronger though, in my opinion, would be a Democrat who opposed the War all along.

[Mass]

14. You can probably say for something or other about anybody.

And anyway, pundits will find something to say. If we have to stop at that, we can elect McCain right now, because it does not matter.

Focus on what the candidates will propose and what they stand for. It is what really matters. The rest only matters for election the American Idol. If we focus on that, we make a mockery of democracy. (and this is not a statement of support for the two people in the OP. It is just that I do not see why I should mind about pundits. They just do not matter).

[DaveinMD]

22. bullcrap

the statement that Kerry made is in sharp contrast to Edwards who has said he made a mistake. If Kerry just said I was wrong to vote for it that would have been the end of it.

[Stargazer99]

26. Stargazer99

When you can't trust your damn president and his administration to be HONEST WITH YOU anything else pales by comparison. I don't give a damn about who voted for the war or who didn't. WE'VE BEEN LIED TO for a neo-con ajenda...you conservatives are a shame. The living hell you cons seem so accepting of as long as it doesn't affect you should be shoved right down the Republican throat

[karynnj]

32. Kerry has REPEATEDLY said that

How much clearer can you get then asaying the "war was wrong and my vote was wrong" (takeback America) in a speech where he called the war immoral.

He said that he profoundly regrets that vote and says it was the worst vote he ever made.

Edwards was a co-sponsor of the resolution and was FOR the war after it started and after they found no WMD. Kerry spoke in January 2003 stating that the inspectors and diplomacy should be given more time. He called for "regime change at home" when Bush invaded.

[DaveinMD]

34. in the campaign

he made the fateful statement. That gave it a life of its own and fit into the narrative that the Republicans were spinning.

[karynnj]

38. That makes no sense in conjuction with your

post I responded to - Edwards didn't say he was against it until Nov 2005.

First of all that comment was on funding the war - and you have twisted the reference in your mind. Kerry did say "WRONG WAR - millions of times and That it was not a war of last resort. In 2004, Kerry was MORE against the war than Edwards.

[DaveinMD]

51. the one clip

drowned out everything else he said on the subject. Its sad, but that is how politics is.

[geek tragedy]

39. During the campaign he said that he'd vote

for the IWR all over again, and that voting for it wasn't a mistake. He even said he'd have voted for the IWR if he knew that Iraq didn't have WMDs.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/14/kerry_demands_us_troop_pullout/

[Catchawave]

31. So, who should I vote for ?

Is Kucinich running again ?

[AtomicKitten]

67. gore, obama, clark

[noamnety]

33. looking forward

Given a choice between a candidate who supported - financially or otherwise - the war but now supports ending the thing, and a candidate who spoke against the war but won't commit to bringing troops home now, I'll go with the fuckups who were complicit. Speaking out 3 years ago doesn't save lives in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, etc.

Both those options suck, though. What we need is a candidate who refuses to fund the war, refuses to prolong it, and refuses to leave troops there as "negotiating pawns."

[GreenArrow]

40. why reward the fuckups?

After all, they've already fucked up once. Besides, calling it a "fuck-up" makes it sound like they simply left the milk sit out all night instead of making a considered decision to support what was clearly monstruous bullshit when it was first proposed.

[noamnety]

41. alright, I withdraw the innacurate name calling

"fuckers" is probably more accurate than fuckups.

I don't intent to reward them; I intend to call them out on that bullshit. I was just pointing out - in the context of this thread - that I'd rather vote for someone who will end the damn war than someone who wants to hang around in Iraq while giving lip service to ending the war.

Anyone who claims to want to end it and continues to fund it is continuing the hypocrisy.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Our opinion differs......

As there is a choice between those who allowed what we are now trying to end and those who spoke out against going in in the first place. I support those who saw ahead with foresight when it counted as opposed to those now leading from the rear with catchy feel good slogans. It's always much easier to stand up when everyone else is by popular request.....while it is much harder to keep one's wit about them as they lead the way out of complex and dangerous situation that shouldn't have been to begin with.

Those complicit with the fact that has caused the lives and casualties of many U.S. Soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the fact that we have spent billions of dollars should be held accountable, not rewarded with higher regard; while those trying to undo what was done should not be blamed for the events that have not yet happened (as you so conveniently do as you project the future).

Those who are now advocating to Bush for a common sense approach via negotiations, diplomacy and political means to get us out while closing the lid on the Pandora's box opened by others who; I salute them. They again lead with foresight as opposed to pandering to voters who today seem to put a higher premium on American lives than Iraqi lives now that they see clearly the result of bad policy . Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, and no matter what, seamlessly putting humpty Dumpty back together again like magic Presto is gonna take more than impatience and stomping one's foot on the throat of those who warned us to begin with. That tactic makes no sense, no matter how politically expedient it all appears.

[noamnety]

44. Yep, our opinions differ a lot

Continuing the occupation is a nonstarter.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I agree with that.....

But I also suggest that thinking that even logistically (it took 2 months for the U.S. to get positioned to invade Iraq, so thinking it would take less time to retreat is ridiculous even on its face) we can get out of Iraq yesterday is a notion that is not fact based. The other fact that we cannot ignore is that Bush is still the President, and in the end it's whatever his little mind decides. period.

Keeping it real has its rewards when looking for an analytically intelligent manner of solving a problem that we have little control over. It's easy to advocate, based on all evidence, something that feels good but will not realistically happen...

[noamnety]

46. "analytically intelligent manner "

chuckling here.

(used to be an intel analyst)

[FrenchieCat]

47. Chuckles are worth as much as slogans.....

so if intel analysis was your schtick, why are you going with an idealistic slogan as your chosen solution; in particular, one that won't be implemented in the manner that you proscribe?

[noamnety]

49. Idealism.

"pursuit of high or noble principles, purposes, goals"

I'm going with that because pursuing low and immoral principles, purposes, or goals doesn't interest me as much.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Idealism.....as a philosophy.....

Idealism: Philosophy. a. any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.
b. the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idealism

I'll stick to Realism on this very significant issue.....
Realism: Philosophy. a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception.

Realist- Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
2. an artist or a writer whose work is characterized by realism.
3. Philosophy. an adherent of realism.
–adjective 4. of or pertaining to realism or to a person who embodies its principles or practices: the realist approach to social ills; realist paintings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realist


and pragmatism: Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.
2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.

prag·ma·tism (prgm-tzm) Pronunciation Key
n.
Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.

[noamnety]

55. I'm not interested really in a rhetoric debate.

We could argue what the definition of "is" is all day long. Let's pretend we did.

It's extremely naive and unrealistic to believe that a continued occupation of Iraq will result in the exact opposite effect of what it's already resulted in, and continues to result in. A whole lot of analysts - including myself - predicted exactly this outcome as the likely course of events if we invaded. We predicted it as the only possible outcome actually, and we made those predictions in the early 90's, not 2002, and we were briefing this at the time to commanding generals. I personally briefed this to generals in 1991.

Ideally, we would not have started this war. Ideally, we will find a candidate who recognizes that the problem was not just the way Bush went about it, but the overall concept itself - that it was always deeply flawed, and not just because of military tactics, but because of the political and economic goals that led to us getting involved in it. So I'm not so interested in hearing about how this person or that person would have supported the war, but not with a go-it-alone strategy. I don't want to hear how they could have done it better. Anyone who wants to bring that into the debate at this point has missed the larger picture. The point of a military battle is to produce a political outcome; we didn't have one that justified action on our part.

And I will add that the deeply flawed part began with the sanctions - or you could even go back farther than that, because it wasn't only the sanctions when you look back in history. But I would like a candidate to step forward and say "The war that Bush started was immoral. The sanctions under Clinton were immoral. Our continued presence in the region is immoral."

[FrenchieCat]

59. I understand what you want.....

and I say good luck in obtaining just that.

Time will tell all eventually. :hi:

[GreenArrow]

60. "The war that Bush started was imoral"

That's the first Essential step to any lasting solution in Iraq -- a genuine national apology. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone to say it though, other than the most "idealistic" of candidates (never mind that the arguments offered up by such before and after the war were and are far more pragmatic and realistic than anything offered by the so-called "pragmatists".)

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. My highest priority is keeping America out of wrong wars

My biggest litmus test is a candidate who is speaking out NOW against a drift to War with Iran, Syria, and/or North Korea. I don't want a candidate who thinks it is the job of the United States President to represent whatever the view of the current Israel government happens to be then. I don't want a President who spent all of his or her time prior to the 2008 election trying to make sure that s/he sounded tough enough against "those madmen" in Iran to "be electable". Thats what Democrats did prior to the 2002 elections regarding Iraq and Hussein.

If we think the war in Iraq is a disaster, how do people feel about attacking Iran next? Who is fighting to stop that one before it starts, like we wish more Democrats did in 2002 regarding Iraq?

[AtomicKitten]

52. two points

1) Every Democrat that voted yes on the IWR is responsible. Nobody gets a pass. Recanting when the polls shift doesn't count.

Spread the love:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

2) The discussion can easily be shifted to the Three Stooges execution of the war and the war-profiteering. I suspect voting yes on the IWR will pale in comparison to that.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Is Hillary Clinton against the war?

I hear rumors to that effect once in a while, but she hasn't done much to convince me.

BTW, a point of fact from my youth that may or may not be relevant: Senator McGovern voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964.

[bling bling]

54. I should hope Edwards and Clinton are smart enough to overcome it.

For one thing, Clinton and Edwards can focus on how the war was managed so poorly AFTER the initial invasion. It didn't have to turn out as bad as it has. This is why so many Generals have turned against the Bush administration. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney not only lied to the public and then invaded a sovereign nation illegally, but they had no post-invasion plans AND they ignored the advice of the generals on the ground in Iraq. Furthermore, it's coming to light more and more now just how much Halliburton has profited from this war.

If Clinton and Edwards can't rise above the mud slinging of hw they voted on the IWR, then neither of them deserve to be Commander in Chief. The GOP has handed the Democrats talking points and issues to criticize on a golden platter. We really shouldn't have much to worry about as far as the Iraq War goes, anyway.

[snowbear]

56. Yo.... Nebs...

[Bridget Burke]

57. Let's slag other Democrats....

Rather than criticize Republicans.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[AtomicKitten]

58. you have that exactly right

except for some it is more palatable (reads: perfectly okay) when they do it to promote their dream candidate for 2008.

[noamnety]

61. Let's slag everyone who was complicit in the war

If you like, we can start a thread saying "these republicans played a role in starting and continuing the war" and we can probably get a few hundred responses that say "Yep!" "absolutely!" and what would be the point of that, if we all agree? A lot of backslapping? The republicans suck. We know what what to do about that, vote the bastards out.

Now we're left with "do some of the democrats also suck?" "Which ones?" "Do any of them need to also be held accountable or do they deserve blind support because of that D after their name?" "How do we encourage the ones that don't suck to run for office?"

We've pretty much determined, as a party, that the D is not enough. That's why Lieberman's seat, which should by tradition have been safe, turned into a seriously contested one.

Shortly after the elections, there was one politician, a democrat, who made reference to why we couldn't pull out of Iraq. And one of the reasons was that it wasn't politically good for the party.

I had a flash of insight right there, the kind that stops you in its tracks and makes your blood run a little cold.

"It's good for the party" is an immoral reason to occupy another country. It's not something you can ask one of our soldiers to die for.

[AtomicKitten]

62. These Democrats are responsible:

Every single one voted yes on the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[noamnety]

64. Thanks for posting the list

It does need to be put in front of people, regularly. Even people like me, who obviously feel pretty strongly about this, need to have it shoved in front of us. None of those people would be my ideal candidate, because of that vote.

And also, none of the people who advocate staying would be my ideal candidate.

We've got some people in other threads dismissing other potential candidates because "they're too short." And I have to stop and wonder what the hell- you know, I can't even form that thought into a complete sentence.

I know that if my friend loses his son in Iraq, I can't look him in the eye and explain I didn't support the guy that would have brought his kid home alive because he was short.

[Catchawave]

65. Do you have the list who voted no ?

And would they appeal to moderates, crossovers and swings ?

[AtomicKitten]

66. NO-voting Senators

Democrats- No

Akaka, Hawaii
Bingaman, N.M.
Boxer, Calif
Byrd, W.Va.
Conrad, N.D.
Corzine, N.J.
Dayton, Minn.
Durbin, Ill.
Feingold, Wis
Graham, Fla.
Inouye, Hawaii
Kennedy, Mass.
Leahy, Vt.
Levin, Mich.
Mikulski, Md.
Murray, Wash.
Reed, R.I.
Sarbanes, Md.
Stabenow, Mich.
Wellstone, Minn.
Wyden, Ore.

Republicans- No

Chafee, R.I.

Independents- No

Jeffords, Vt.

[FrenchieCat]

68. and don't forget the House votes, which were important as well.....

123 voted NO in reference to the IWR. Lotsa wise folks walking the streets of D.C. at the time!

Weird how none from both the Senate or the House are currently running, while so many that voted Yeah are. Wish I didn't have to say-- Figures! :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

69. indeed

And if one of them throws their hat in the ring for 2008, I'll be sure to post them.

I for one am not amenable to mitigating the impact of the Democratic yes vote on the IWR. The really twisted part IMO is that they did it to CYA thinking a no vote would make them look weak on terror. Ironic that it ends up making them look just plain wrong.

I feel we can find an excellent candidate in Clark, Gore, or Obama.

[Catchawave]

70. Am I the only one having trouble with your sig line?

I can only read the left half of your posts !

[AtomicKitten]

71. I changed my sig line -- hope it helps.

[Catchawave]

72. Yes it does, thanks....

and thanks for the voting lists. :hi:

[noamnety]

73. see, that's where you lose me

anyonme who wants to continue to fund this/stay in Iraq is out. As out as the rest of them. More out than the rest of them.

[AtomicKitten]

74. I have no problem drawing the line at the IWR vote.

I don't know who in particular you object to, but IMO it's in a state of flux at this point. Just yakking about solutions doesn't come close to the magnitude of the impact of a vote.

The solution to the monster mistake of invading Iraq is a work in progress. If one of the contenders I would consider actually does something that impacts the course of events in a negative way, then you bet I'll reconsider. Til then I've got my ears and mind open.

[snowbear]

76. Ms. Burke,

Read the freakin' ORIGINAL message.

Then ask yourself. Who the hell was criticizing DEMOCRATS?

If you guessed Nebula, you guessed correctly.

[BlueStater]

63. From what I can tell, Hillary Clinton is only against the way the war has been run

She's apparently all for sticking with this screw-up if the tactics change. :eyes:

[DemDogs]

75. Yeah, well, who says so?

Who is going to make that charge?
The Republicans? HA HA HA HA HA.
The MSM? Maybe against HRC but not against Edwards. The MSM (and the voters) give him credit for his honesty in saying he was wrong and not ducking responsibility.

[FrenchieCat]

77. What fucking responsiblity did Edwards take exactly?

Did he decide that his vote and Co-sponsorship of the IWR was such a mistake that he has decided against a run because his vote shows he's unqualified to be Commander in Chief? didn't think so.

Plu-Eaze! don't underestimate many of us here who knows which way is up. Edwards ain't paid for shit yet.

[Catchawave]

78. Edwards must be doing something right

polling in double digits and all, y'all :D

[FrenchieCat]

80. Yes, and so did Bush....and? n/t

[GreenArrow]

79. Confucius say:

"Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue".

What responsibility did Edwards take? That's the beauty of it; he doesn't have to take any! He only has to say that he does. He's gettin' by on his looks now, and his Ronnie Raygun shining city on a hill rhetoric. Maybe that's enough, but maybe, just maybe, especially if we are still in Iraq in 2008, it ain't.