Why The Rigid Ideological Purity Test For Candidates Who Voted Yes On IWR?

[ruggerson]

Why all the hostility towards candidates who voted Yes on the IWR, but now clearly say their vote was wrong? Shouldn't we be applauding them for having the courage and wisdom to grow and change as world events dictate?

Here are the Senators who voted against the IWR:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Any Senator serving in '02 NOT on this list voted FOR the IWR. Should we dismiss them all as potential leaders in a post Bush world?

Politicians and leaders are often wrong. Sometimes about the great issues of the day. Ghandi, Churchill, Lincoln, Roosevelt were all wrong at times - yet the common thread they shared was that they were adaptable, not intransigent, and changed course when they saw the error in their ways.

Leaders who have the courage, fortitude and character to occasionally change their minds on issues are exactly the kind of leaders we need to take us into the unknown future. Smart leaders must have agile, flexible minds and discerning, forgiving souls.

To exclude candidates from consideration, based on the fact that they changed their mind on an issue when world events showed their original position to be a mistake, is to angrily, rigidly and ignorantly cast aside some of the best future leaders who might have just the political skills, acuity and foresight needed to save our planet.

[kentuck]

1. It's not a Rigid Ideological Purity Test...

It's a Rigid Judgement Test on such an importantmatter as going to war. It's not the same as going to Sunday School.

[ruggerson]

3. Half the American people changed their mind, too.

Are they all bad people?

It is indeed a ideological purity test, and one that does damage to our ability to get out of this mess.

We should be CHEERING when someone stands up and says that they were dead wrong about giving Bush the authority to go into Iraq. Not berating them.

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is Indeed The Key To It, Sir

The largest voting block in the country just now comprises people who either supported or acquiesced in the invasion of Iraq in its early stages, and now wish the venture terminated as a failure. Since electoral politics involves getting people to identify with a candidate, the idea that a person who did just about what all these people did is an unsuitable standard bearer makes little sense. An approach that sums up as "Well, we told you so, you idiots!" is certain to alienate many: people do not like to hear that, even if it is deserved.

[Zhade]

42. Not quite.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-25-poll-usat_x.htm

Overall, 58% favor using U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam from power, a percentage that has held fairly steady since mid-October.

The survey finds complex attitudes on what would justify invasion. Two out of three, 64%, say the United States should first get U.N. authorization to launch an attack if Iraq defies a U.N. resolution calling for full inspections. The Bush administration says it could act without additional U.N. approval.

But 63% in the poll favor letting Saddam off the hook if weapons are found and he agrees to destroy them.

If U.N. inspectors find no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or facilities where they could be produced, 52% oppose sending troops.

It's not accurate to just say the majority supported the war; as the above shows, there were conditions, none of which panned out. Hence, it can be deduced that no justification = no majority support for invading.

[MADem]

18. There ya go!!!!

Injecting LOGIC into the debate...how dare you??? :rofl:

Some people just like to fight, see? They think politics is a contact sport, llike wrestling....it's sometimes FIXED like wrestling, but it ain't the same.

[jonnyblitz]

19. half the American people aren't congresspersons running

for president.

[AtomicKitten]

22. they should not be leaders

If they voted yes because they were misled or bamboozled by BushCo, they are too stupid to lead this country. If they voted yes because they were watching out for the political hinnies, they are too arrogant and self-centered to lead this country.

Yes, I do believe the leaders we choose should be held to a higher standard than John Q. Public.

This kind of decision having to do with war and matters of life and death is not that subject to a "do-over." Hundreds of thousands of people have died and we have decimated a sovereign country that did nothing to provoke this attack.

You are more than welcome to your opinion on this matter, but those firmly in opposition to this are not going to be moved by brow-beating here at DU. I can assure you of that. And this is only a "rigid purity test" to those that disagree usually based on supporting someone that voted 'yes' on the IWR and not on any real ideological POV on the issue.

[Zhade]

43. AK, this is the best post you've ever made.

I can't AGREE with you enough!

Hell yes!

[Clark2008]

45. What she said.

:applause:

[SaveElmer]

49. So you would have opposed George McGovern...

Based on his yes vote for Gulf of Tonkin?

[SOS]

94. McGovern/Tonkin can't be compared to IWR

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was on August 4, 1964.
It was national news on August 5.
McNamara testified to Congress that the United States had sustained an attack by the North Vietnamese on the USS Maddox.
The Resolution was passed on August 7, 1964. 416-0 in the House and 88-2 in th Senate.

Two points are crucial. Two points make the Tonkin/IWR comparison unsupportable:

1. The Congress was informed by the Secretary of Defense that the US had been directly attacked by North Vietnam.
2. The vote came within 48 hours.

Did Iraq attack the US?
Did the IWR yes-voters have only one day to research the veracity of the administration's claims?

IWR authorized Bush to determine the start of a preventative war against a nation which had not attacked us.
Senators and Representatives had months to research the Bush/Cheney claims of Iraq's "threat" before any vote was taken.

These two bills can't be even remotely compared.

[ruggerson]

70. Was Gore misled and bamboozled by Lieberman?

One could make the argument that picking his VP candidate was the single most important decision Al Gore ever made in his political career.

It was a life and death decision, since if anything happened to Al Gore, he was entrusting the nation to Lieberman as Commander in Chief.

Yet, Gore apparently picked a man completely lacking in both character and judgement.

What does that say about Al Gore's decision making skills?

(I'm not actually agreeing with what I'm writing, but a case could be made for this, based on your reasoning.)

:)

[AtomicKitten]

74. you're so cute, ruggie

I wish I could muster my most caustic snottiness but I really like you, dammit.

I'll give you snaps for a nice try, but decisions on war are literally decisions of life and death, not extrapolations of hypothetical scenarios, or what-ifs.

Gore has evolved for the better; can't say the same for Lieberman. That decision then is light-years in effect than that same decision if made today. In other words, if Gore gets the nod in 2008, I can assure you he will choose a Democrat for a running mate.

[Skwmom]

23. Did working Americans have the time to research the IWR -

no, that was the job of their ELECTED officials.

[GreenArrow]

35. I disagree

The American people have a responsibility to keep informed. I will grant you that the way things are arranged makes it very difficult for them to do so.

[Zhade]

41. I'm uncertain I could trust THEM to run the country, too.

For me, it's a matter of trust. I reasonably concluded there was no threat from Iraq; 28 Dem senators did as well. Yet pro-IWR voters didn't know?

Sorry. Unconvinced. Can't trust them on matters like this again.

[sampsonblk]

53. ...then they shouldn't be President either

How can being wrong become a virtue??? They screwed up. How hard is that to understand? I am glad some of them are figuring out their mistake, even though it took 3,000 deaths for them to wake up. But that does not qualify them for the promotion many of them seek. Hell no.

[NashVegas]

86. You Nailed It, Kentuck

I will not vote for a Senator or Representative who's stupider than I am, or willing to sacrifice their conscience out of political fear. It's that simple.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. It depends if they are sincere in their change of heart.

I believe someone like Edwards really regretted his vote because he came out very early about it. At that time it made no political gain for him so, I feel he really thought it over.
Someone like Hillary waited until the last minute when she found herself sliding in the polls and did as her consultants told her. It was expediant for her. Not sincere.
So, for me it depends on the sincerity of it.

[Skwmom]

27. He came out early? Give me a break. Rockefeller and others

came out against the IWR LONG before Edwards did - Edwards who waited until polled support for the war plummeted to an all-time low. A. Pelosi even wrote in her book - The Flying Circus... how Edwards when asked about his opinion on an issue asked if they had taken a poll yet.

[Clark2008]

47. OMG!!

I have to know that exact quote! I have to see it - so the next time someone asks why I just don't believe Edwards really had a change of heart (as opposed to saying or doing what is politically popular), I can just quote this.

This should be its own thread!

[atre]

61. i think we deserve a quote

... or a ban, if there is no such thing.

[Skwmom]

65. If the library is open tomorrow I will get you that quote. e/o/m

[Cameron27]

82. When you have the quote.

please start a new thread with it. Very important info to know.

[Nay]

4. I think we would look at that vote differently if it hadn't been so grossly

obvious that there was no reason for this war, and that a "yes" vote was simply a cowardly vote, a vote intended to indicate a willingness to go along to get along. That sort of gameplaying is deadly now, and those who chose to play games at that time, with all what they knew about the WMD lies, the pub agenda, Bush's lack of ethics, etc., etc., should forever be regarded as tainted.

In other words, when it was their time to do the right thing, they didn't do it. And the whole world is suffering for their error.

[Crazy Dave]

7. Exactly

Now there are tens or maybe hundreds of thousands dead, children among them. Voting for mass murder just to get re-elected or just to keep Limbaugh and Hannity from talking bad about you is no excuse.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. If our eventual leading candidates did sign,

I will be highly interested in whether, when, and how strongly they DID change and speak out. The list in your post is telling; there aren't many top prospects on it.

[Crazy Dave]

6. Because tens of thousands, maybe more are now dead

Some made the wrong choice because they thought they were doing the right thing but some went along solely for fear of losing their job by being labeled "weak on terror".
Putting your political career above human life is not acceptable whether you have a (D) or an (R) behind your name.
Plus we expect more from our leaders. For crying out loud if Madonna and Sean Penn knew for a fact there were no WMD's, I'm sure most senators and congressmen probably knew the same but put their jobs ahead of lives.

[msongs]

8. what are these senators doing NOW to undo the damage they have caused?

if they are doing nothing, and for the most part they ARE doing nothing, then their newly found positions are nothing but bullsh*t.

action speaks louder than words.

when there is a disconnect between what people say and what they do, WHAT THEY DO is the real truth.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art

[Zhade]

46. Damn straight!

NT!

[lakeguy]

9. if i made an error of that caliber in my employment field

i would have been fired with no chance of doing the same thing in the near future, if ever. this wasn't just an oopsie.

[jgraz]

60. Even if you weren't fired...

I bet you wouldn't have the chutzpah to ask your boss for a promotion.

[earthlover]

10. it is a matter of life or death....

I remember vividly seeing Senator Wellstone give a speech to a small group of people at a cafe in St Cloud MN where he announced he was going to vote against the IWR. I thought at the time he was committing political suicide. He was in a close race for reelection against Norm Coleman and it was seemingly obvious that voting against the IWR would be swimming against a stream of war fever that plagued the nation at that time.

It was obvious to me, a civilian, someone not privy to all the information that the Senators have, that Iraq was a blunder. It wasn't that hard to figure. I am no Einstein.

Surprisingly to me, Wellstone's polls actually improved after this announcement and it looked like he was gonna pull off a victory when his plane crashed.

So, while it is understandable why some other Senators and Representatives voted for the IWR, the same reason why is a good reason NOT to vote for them right now. They are folks who took either were so blind to NOT see what an abyss Iraq was gonna be or they wimped out and took the politically "safe" route even though this meant they were supporting the DEATHS of American servicemen in the process.

Anyone who cannot see that their votes have real-life-or-death impact on others should not be in a position of power. Anyone who takes political expediency when lives are at stake is a moral coward. Anyone who, when the political winds blow the other way, say they are against the war....well the Iraq war is not about political winds, it is a life or death scenario. That is why Bush's "surge" is so tragic. It is not because it is stupid, which it is...it is because people will die needlessly because of it.

How can those who take expediency instead of principle say with a clear conscience that they would do any different as president?

[Crazy Dave]

13. You stated it much better than I

Among those currently dead are thousands of children. Many did vote just to keep their job or thinking that's what their party needed to do in the race for 2004 but saw that it didn't work out as well as well as they thought it would. How many do you think are currently losing any sleep over the deaths of so many right now? Not too many. The only thing keeping some of these career politicians up at night are what the manipulated media polls and the generous, bipartisan defense contractors are saying, not what the American people are saying.

[Greyhound]

11. For myself, it has to do with my minimum requirement that my representatives

be at least as smart as I am. It was an obvious sham from the very beginning so I can only conclude that they are either too corrupt, or too gullible, to hold their positions.

[David__77]

12. Nothing ideological about this. It's a question of political judgment.

They made their decision. The debate was clear. They sacrified their credibility for short-term political gain - and I'm not even sure the latter ever materialized.

[FrenchieCat]

14. What's the purpose of showing who voted against.....considering

that your question concerns those who voted for it?

In reference to those who did vote for it, it really depends what they were saying at the time.

Different folks voted "for" the IWR for different reasons. The reasons are as important to me as their votes. Those who were enthused or helped with their words get passage of the blank check are more suspect in terms of leadership abilities than others.

So it's not just who but why and what they did about it.

[MADem]

15. Some people cannot forgive. Some people are absurdly rigid.

Some people are know-it-alls. Some people don't realize that the legislature, both houses, always cut the president a lot of slack. They assume the guy will not abuse the authority they cede to him.

They assumed wrong in this case, but they didn't do it to be assholes, or to be mean to the American poeple. They just put more faith in Monkeyboy than he deserved, maybe based on the notion that his DADDY didn't go off half-cocked when it came to war... They likely didn't realize that the bad apple rolled far, far, far from that stunted tree....

You aren't going to get people who are so bullheaded on that one issue to ever change their minds. They'd much prefer to put you down for even suggesting it.

And, FWIW, I was one of the ones who thought this war was a fer-shit idea from the git-go, and told everyone I knew just that. I DID do the "I told ya so" rounds, but after that, I got over it. It's what mature people do...

[AtomicKitten]

24. name-calling is not debate

I can assure you that I don't know nor do I think I know "it all." My opinion on this matter is forged in conviction and my own moral compass.

Knock yourself out and vote for whomever you choose; that's what democracy is all about. I choose my leaders based on a higher standard and the ability to make good decisions on my behalf.

Name-calling in this venue is nothing more than boorish behavior in trying to marginalize someone you disagree with and doesn't do anything to augment an explanation of your own point of view.

[Skwmom]

16. CO-SPONSORING or voting for the biggest debacle in US history

is not the creds I'm looking for in a future president. Coming out against the war only AFTER support for the war has reached an all-time low is neither courageous or an indication of wisdom. Anybody with wisdom OR courage would have never voted for the IWR in the first place and they sure in the heck wouldn't have co-sponsored it (a.k.a. been an architect of the IRW). To try to paint it as some ideological purity test is more political p.r. spin.

[sendero]

33. Exactly...

.... I talk to folks and they say "congress was misled". You know what I have to say about that?

Anyone that god damned stupid has no business in Congress period. Bush could not have been more obvious in his bad intentions if he had "I'm a lying douchebag" tattooed on his forehead.

Reasonable people might be be able to disagree about what we knew about Iraq. But nobody can disagree with the fact that George Bush was spinning and lying so much and so blatantly to make his case, that support of him showed a lack of a basic ability needed by any leader - to know shit from shinola.

[atre]

63. this is a lie

Edwards did no "co-sponsor" the "IWR" that passed Congress. Why don't you link/quote the bill he actually did co-sponsor?

[geek tragedy]

20. I want someone able to recognize a horrible idea

and tragic disaster of epic proportions BEFORE it happens instead of more than two years later.

[lligrd]

21. I Prefer Leaders Who Have The Courage, Fortitude

and character to do what is right even when it is not in their political interest to do so. And I prefer a leader who is intelligent to be able to assess a situation and know when the evidence stinks to high heaven. I knew this was a sham from the beginning and I want a leader who is at least as smart as I am.

[depakid]

25. It's NOT about purity- it's about good judment

or the lack thereof.

And yes, we should absolutely dismiss them all as potential "leaders," because either they were stupid or lacked the political fortitude to do what anyone paying attention knew was the right thing.

This hold doubly true for people on that list who've repeatedly enabled the far right in other votes.

[Donna Zen]

26. What's in our future?

Whatever the future holds, it is certain that there will be other crisis. Thus, it isn't a matter of a litmus test, those are words of the supporters of candidates that wish to sweep that IWR vote under the rug. This is a matter of past judgment about a matter of life and death, a matter that will haunt our country morally and economically for years to come. Our grandchildren won't get the option to sweep this under the rug; they will live with the fallout.

When the next crisis hits if you want someone who has shown bad judgment at the helm, that is your choice. I do not hate these candidates, but I also do not honor them. For some their bad judgment continues in other areas right this moment. Think Iran.

And so, save your characterization of why some of feel that giving bush a blank check was a indication that they should never lead our country. It has nothing to do with hate or lack of forgiveness. It has everything with using our brains to try and fix our nation.

Besides: they all knew. Everyone of them knew.

[kentuck]

28. War seemed to be such a trivial matter to some....

that they did not think twice before voting for the war. After all, it was more important that they protect themselves politically than to vote against a war without evidence and without necessity. Of course, they say they did not vote for "war". And if they wish to say that, let them. Also, if their supporters wish to support them, let them.

[SaveElmer]

29. You are of course correct...

Any sober reading of the reasons behind the yes vote cast by these members reveals they were not voting for a war, but as an effort to get inspectors back into Iraq.

It is wrong that Bush's lies were obvious for all to see in 2002. Read the statements of those opposed to the IWR...they all believed Saddam was a threat and had or were attempting to obtain WMD's...

[leftofthedial]

30. it's not about ideology; it's about gullibility

incompetence and transparent lies about why they voted the way they did

[SaveElmer]

31. Do you believe John Kerry...

Tom Harkin and Max Cleland lied about why they voted for the IWR...

And if so, please provide some evidence for it.

[leftofthedial]

32. I don't need evidence to say I don't believe them

I knew the bush cabal were lying about Iraq. Millions--MILLIONS!--around the world marched in opposition to the bush agenda for the war.

Most posters on DU at the time knew--and documented--that bush, cheney, powell, et al were lying.

Yet these Democratic leaders were "misled" or didn't know then what they know now. I call bullshit. They found it politically expedient (a poor judgement) to give king george his war. Now they want to blame it all on the bushies' lies. They showed poor judgement, lack of conviction, lack of courage, lack of leadership and unbelievable gullibility then. I can't support them now just because they "get it" 4 years, 3000 American and a couple hundred thousand Iraqi lives, 20,000+ mangled bodies and half a trillion dollars later.

The Democrats who had the wisdom, foresight and courage to oppose crimes against humanity deserve our support now.

[SaveElmer]

34. Cite your sources on information available...

In October 2002 that showed Bush was lying...authoritative evidence that would have been readily available to these Senators that would have led them to override the opinion of the CIA and State Department...

As I noted, even opponents of the IWR believed in the threat...

Russ Feingold's floor statement contains this assertion:

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

[earthlover]

37. but Feingold voted AGAINST the IWR didn't he?

So even if you accepted some of Bush's reasoning, there still were lots of reasons to vote no.

[SaveElmer]

38. Of course...

But one of them was not because it was obvious that Saddam didn't have WMD's which is what is so often asserted here...

It is possible those voting for the IWR were doing what they though was the right thing to do...between 1991 and 1998 when inspectors had the most success disarming Saddam, they agree it would not have been possible without the threat of military action...it is that example these members were using to help guide them. They weren't voting for immediate war at all, as all of them said at the time

And as Wesley Clark has actually pointed out, the IWR was actually working until Bush short circuited the process...

[earthlover]

55. Wes Clark opposed the IWR!

In fact, he gave a speech to Congress advising against the IWR.

If only they had listened to his astute advice then....

[SaveElmer]

56. Yes he did...but

Not because he didn't think Iraq wasn't dangerous...and he said he recognized the merits of the arguments for the IWR...

Here is a portion of his testimony...

“I think it’s not time yet to use force against Iraq but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that and I think that the United States Congress has to indicate after due consideration and consulting our people and building our resolve that yes, this is a significant security problem for the United States of America and all options are on the table including the use of force as necessary to solve this problem because I think that’s what’s required to leverage any hope of solving this problem short of war. “

The point of disagreement between proponents and opponents of the IWR was not that Iraq wasn't dangerous...there was remarkable agreement on that point...it was the nature of the remedy that was being proposed...

[earthlover]

64. again...out of context

I do think the key words in your quote are the last three "short of war".

You left out some more of his speech to Congress that makes it totally clear he opposed the IWR.

====
I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration. <b>Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force</b>.

. . . . In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections . . .

. . . . We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership.

. . . .<b>We should not be using force</b> until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq are prepared and ready . . . . <b>We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region</b>.

[SaveElmer]

66. You clearly are not reading my posts...

I have not taken these out of context, nor have I argued these folks did not oppose the IWR...

Yet again, I am pointinbg out...accurately...that the argument over the IWR was not waged on whether Iraq possessed WMD's, but what was the best solution to the problem they posed...

If you had read any of my replies to you, you would understand this...

[earthlover]

68. i have provided more context

the record shows that it is more context than you gave.

The larger point is that you are taking quotes from opponents of the war in a cut and paste way to try to justify the votes of those who voted for the IWR. WOW!

Fact is, even if you grant that the WMD's were there, many people in Congress thought the IWR was NOT the way to handle the situation. In fact, adding the chaos of war to a place that would have WMD's sounds absurd on its face....wouldn't it be smarter to keep tabs on WMD's you "know" the whereabouts of than to risk them getting smuggled elsewhere during the chaos of war, and us losing track of where they are?

So, those who supported this based on the WMD's....poor judgement indeed. Lucky for all of us the WMD's were not really there. If they had been, our invasion may have had far worse results, and our 3000 deaths might have been a lot higher.

I think the arguements against the IWR were pretty strong at the time. They were presented to the Senate. And the arguements fell on deaf ears.

I call this poor judgement. Not much better than Bush's. After all, they voted for a resolution that everyone knows would allow for preemptive action on the part of the USA and it was touted by the press and everyone else as basically an ok for war.

To claim that it was only allowing more inspections, is to ignore the fact that the Congress did not have to pass another war resolution according to the War Powers Act because it already had!

[SaveElmer]

71. Sorry...you are not providing more context...

Though I appreciate that you more fully explained yourself there...

"The larger point is that you are taking quotes from opponents of the war in a cut and paste way to try to justify the votes of those who voted for the IWR. WOW!"

No, those that voted for it were justified by the evidence...evidence acknowledged by opponents of the IWR.

"Fact is, even if you grant that the WMD's were there, many people in Congress thought the IWR was NOT the way to handle the situation. "

Obviously, but these debates are never black and white...which is why there are debates. Most look at the evidence and make a judgement call. Looking at past success at destroying WMD's which required a threat of force, the fact that Iraq had used WMD's in the past, and the fact they were getting explicit detailed reports from the CIA on current WMD's, their vote was not unreasonable at the time.

"In fact, adding the chaos of war to a place that would have WMD's sounds absurd on its face....wouldn't it be smarter to keep tabs on WMD's you "know" the whereabouts of than to risk them getting smuggled elsewhere during the chaos of war, and us losing track of where they are?"

As I have pointed out, no prior success destroying WMD's in Iraq would have been possible without a credible threat of force. And in fact, was working this time as well. After 4 years of no inspectors, Iraq finally began letting them back in as a result of this threat.

"So, those who supported this based on the WMD's....poor judgement indeed. Lucky for all of us the WMD's were not really there. If they had been, our invasion may have had far worse results, and our 3000 deaths might have been a lot higher."

Had they been there, they would have been located by inspectors, redirecting any military effort. And I guarantee you, had the inspectors found evidence of WMD's, most of those that voted against the IWR would have changed their minds mighty fast.

"I think the arguements against the IWR were pretty strong at the time. They were presented to the Senate. And the arguements fell on deaf ears."

Arguments on both sides, at least among Democrats, were very strong in my opinion. General Clark even acknowledged this.

"I call this poor judgement. Not much better than Bush's. After all, they voted for a resolution that everyone knows would allow for preemptive action on the part of the USA and it was touted by the press and everyone else as basically an ok for war."

Bush believed he already had the authority for preemptive war. However this is the crux of the issue. A mistaken trust in George Bush to do what he said he would do...inspections, diplomacy, U.N....he was lying...no one argues that point now, however it was not so clear at the time. He had only been in office a year and a half, and had just conducted what was widely believed on both sides, to be a successful operation in Afghanistan...

Bush's action was not "poor judgement"...his action was morally and ethically wrong...he lied from day one trying to build a justification for this war. To equate that behavior with the mistaken trust Democrats put in his word is ridiculous.

"To claim that it was only allowing more inspections, is to ignore the fact that the Congress did not have to pass another war resolution according to the War Powers Act because it already had!"

Which makes your previous point moot...right? I mean if he already had the power as you say, why do you think a no vote would have stopped him?

[earthlover]

76. so less is more?

I provided much more quotes from the speeches, and link to the entire speech you took itsy bits from. I guess that is not providing more context?

If you read the rest of these speeches you would know that it was pretty obvious that there were serious questions about the entire Iraq mission, including the Bush administration's credibility in claims of nuclear and wmd's.

Faced with wmd's the Congress could have made other decisions. The inspection process had pretty much contained Iraq for years. Allowing the inspection process to continue with some pressure from us was of course one option besides authorizing full fledged war. Getting our allies and the UN more involved was another choice instead of preemptive unilateral action.

It WAS obvious that Bush was gonna take this IWR as a justification for war. Everyone knew it at the time, including the Senators. So to say it was just to authorize more inspections is disingenuous. If this was Congress' intent, it should have voted NO on the IWR and write a new resolution that in plain English would have authorized the continuation of the inspection process. It is clear from some of the speeches you snipped that this was among the alternatives they would have preferred.

But, knowing there were many unanswered questions about Iraq, including what we would be able to do post-invation and warnings that this could become a nightmare....and knowing that war would mean countless deaths, and knowing that there were alternatives to the IWR....many Senators still voted yes.

Was it their constitutional right to vote yes? Of course! Was it sound judgement? No. Did they stand up and demand more answers from the Bush Administration before giving assent? No. Did many people die as a result? Yes. Were there doubts about Bush Administration with regard to exaggerations and veracity of claims beforehand? Yes. Did they, knowing many deaths were on the line, show enough skepticism? No.

We need a president who is willing to give their assent for a war only at the very last resort. And INSIST on the facts BEFORE doing so. Not make judgements based on sketchy information and taking someone's word for it who had already had its credibility cast into doubt by previous exaggerations and deceptions. We also need a president who will take responsibility for their mistakes.

[leftofthedial]

39. I neither have time nor interest in doing a research project for you

At the time, I knew and most posters here knew, that the bastards were lying, that they were executing the plan spelled out by PNAC, that Ritter, Blix and other inspectors had found no WMD, that the aluminum tubes were not for nukes, that the yellowcake story was a hoax, that bush himself, not Saddam, had made inspectors leave, that the UN was not on our side, that no western ally other than poodle Blair was supportive of invading Iraq, that IWR was a guarantee that king george would invade, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that the bush cabal had grotesquely politicized "terror" at every turn, that Iraq posed zero threat to the US or even its weaker neighbors, that repukes had given Saddam what chemical weapons he ever had, that the occupation would be FAR more difficult than the invasion and that the bush cabal had interest in oil, not democracy.

And you ask me to defend my assertion that John Kerry should have known one or two of these things? Bah.

[SaveElmer]

40. In other words...

You have no interest in facts....

In fact I have done the research and was only interested in what drove your opinion...apparently conventional wisdom is your guidestick as the actual evidence would prove you wrong...all of the information you cited of course came to light after the IWR...guess these 28 Senators should have been able to travel forward in time to see the truth...

And I guess Russ Feingold is a liar then too eh?

[leftofthedial]

44. the entire long paragraph in my last post is a list of facts

known facts

documented facts

facts discussed at length here and elsewhere then and now

facts that have been borne out by the disastrous and horrific course of our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

I don't know--and neither do you or anyone else--what John Kerry et al in fact personally knew in 2002.

All I know is what they *should* have known. That they now claim NOT to have known indicates that they were either incompetent or cowardly then or they are lying now.

[SaveElmer]

48. So in your opinion...

Facts that were not generally known, were not given to Congress, and in fact in many cases were not even determined to be facts until well after the IWR vote, should somehow have been magically known by these 28 Senators...

The invasion was the doing of one man George W. Bush...period...to try and shoehorn the blame onto those lied too is laughable

And again, do you believe Russ Feingold was lying when he said the following in October of 2002...

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

[leftofthedial]

50. I knew.

I didn't have a congressional staff of researchers.

you can stop telling me what I know and what I believe now, too.

[SaveElmer]

51. How did you know?

If it was sooooo obvious certainly you can point to one piece of credible evidence...

[FrenchieCat]

52. I knew just reading the French press at the time.....and following our press as well.....

The Selling of the IRaq War....
The Battle in Congress - Fall 2002
The administration used the anniversary of September 11, 2001, to launch its public campaign for a congressional resolution endorsing war, with or without U.N. support, against Saddam. The opening salvo came on the Sunday before the anniversary in the form of a leak to Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon of The New York Times regarding the aluminum tubes. Miller and Gordon reported that, according to administration officials, Iraq had been trying to buy tubes specifically designed as "components of centrifuges to enrich uranium" for nuclear weapons. That same day, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on the political talk shows to trumpet the discovery of the tubes and the Iraqi nuclear threat. Explained Rice, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld added, "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand--it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Many of the intelligence analysts who had participated in the aluminum-tubes debate were appalled. One described the feeling to TNR: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie." Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, recalled, "I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet." As Thielmann puts it, "There was a lot of evidence about the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs to be concerned about. Why couldn't we just be honest about that without hyping the nuclear account? Making the case for active pursuit of nuclear weapons makes it look like the administration was trying to scare the American people about how dangerous Iraq was and how it posed an imminent security threat to the United States."

In speeches and interviews, administration officials also warned of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On September 25, 2002, Rice insisted, "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. ... There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship there." On the same day, President Bush warned of the danger that "Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness." Rice, like Rumsfeld--who the next day would call evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden link "bulletproof"--said she could not share the administration's evidence with the public without endangering intelligence sources. But Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed. On September 27, Paul Anderson, a spokesman for Graham, told USA Today that the senator had seen nothing in the CIA's classified reports that established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in fact, was the greatest congressional obstacle to the administration's push for war. Under the lead of Graham and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the committee enjoyed respect and deference in the Senate and the House, and its members could speak authoritatively, based on their access to classified information, about whether Iraq was developing nuclear weapons or had ties to Al Qaeda. And, in this case, the classified information available to the committee did not support the public pronouncements being made by the CIA.

and following the story of the Aluminum tubes....
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

DID ANYONE READ THIS FUCKING ARTICLE....CAUSE I DID? :shrug:
Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer

[SaveElmer]

54. You have pointed to something valuable...

Though this just shows that in hindsight the admninistration was lying all along...the bone of contention with the CIA on the evidence at the time was on the nuclear capability ...

The primary person in the Senate questioning that evidence was Bob Graham, who though he believed Iraq was making efforts to a nuclear capability, questioned how far down the road they were...

However there was widespread agreement among opponents and proponents that Iraq had retained its biological and chemical capability...

Here is the last National Inteligence Assessment from the CIA before the vote...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf

Here are the statements of prominent opponents of the IWR:

There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world.” -Kent Conrad

“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability.” -Bob Graham

“Saddam Hussein’s desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern.” -Jim Jeffords

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs…instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.” -Barbara Mikulski

Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.” -Paul Wellstone

Wellstone was advocating a unified approach with the U.N. which is why he opposed the IWR…

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

The point is, and even Scott Ritter agreed with this, that there was enough uncertainty about what Iraq had to make it important that inspectors be reinserted into Iraq...

As Ritter pointed out, Iraq had NEVER cooperated with inspectors, and what cooperation they did provide would have been impossible without a credible threat of force...

Ritter also said it was very possible Iraq had maintained a VX gas capability...

General Clark agreed that inspectors had to be reinserted, and although he disagreed with the specific IWR proposal, recognized the merits of the arguments for it...

In fact, between October 12th when the IWR was passed up until shortly before the war, inspectors were back doing their job. It was George Bush that decided to short circuit that process and rush to an invasion.

The primary difference between those voting for and against the IWR was not a definition of what the problem was...they were in remarkable agreement that Iraq was a danger, the argument was about the proper method to resolve that problem...

The 28 Democratic Senators were voting to give leverage to Bush to get inspectors back in...leverage that had worked in the past...not for preemptive war. In hindsight of course, trust in Bush was wildly misplaced...but that is more a condemnation of Bush and his lies....

[earthlover]

59. there you go again...this time quoting Wellstone out of context

http://www.wellstone.org/archive/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5423&catID=3605

This is a link to Wellstone's entire speech.

Wellstone was opposed to the IWR for SEVERAL reasons.

Quoting out of context may be deceptive.

Point is, whether you believed in WMD's in Iraq or not, many astute Senators opposed the IWR and made their voices heard to the rest of the Senate. Too bad their voices were not heard.

[SaveElmer]

62. That is not the point...

The argument I am presented with time and time again here at DU is that is was obvious that George Bush was lying about WMD's prior to the IWR vote...that the vote could not be credibly based on the notion that Saddam Hussein had WMD's...that anyone who believed he did is lying, naive or both...

I am pointing out that is not what the debate over the IWR was based...there was remarkable agreement on the problem between proponents and opponents of the IWR...Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD's...

The debate was over the solution to that problem...

I am not saying a Yes vote on the IWR was the correct vote...I am saying that the reasons for the Yes vote for the 28 Democrats in the U.S. Senate was based on evidence widely believed to be correct on both sides...and in fact the threat of military force did get inspectors reinserted into Iraq...it was George Bush that short circuited that process...

There is no credible argument IMO that these 28 were voting for strictly Machieveliian reasons knowing that it would result in the deaths of so many...

[FrenchieCat]

75. But that September 2002 article in the WAPO was not the only one

that shows today clearly that Dems weren't really buying Bush's line on Iraq....and so many as they now say that they were misled (yet co-sponsored such IWR and were standing by their vote a year later), indeed understood what Bush was doing. Why some voted "FOR" as opposed to "AGAINST" the IWR varies greatly politico to politico.

Some, like Levin voted for a more restricted Resolution (as Clark said he would have) in where Bush would have had to come back AFTER securing a vote from the Security Council, but did not vote for the Blank Check resolution. The point of the more restrictive resolution was to attempt to slow Bush down, give the United Nation more power in the decision of war, give more time for the American people to debate the evidence, and in effect hope that the inspectors could come back with a definite pronouncement prior to a war being started.

Here are a few of those article, that show clearly that most of the lawmakers pretty much had Bush's number....

These articles are all from 2002, prior to the vote.
American Aides Split on Assessment of Iraq's Plans
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A letter to Congress from the director of central intelligence has brought into public view divisions within the administration over what intelligence shows about Iraq's intentions and its willingness to ally itself with Al Qaeda.

The letter and other reports from the C.I.A. paint a worrisome picture of Iraq's pursuit of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. But they do not support the White House's view that Iraq presents an immediate threat to the American homeland and may use Al Qaeda to carry out attacks at any moment.

Current and former administration officials say divisions between the C.I.A. and the White House and civilian Defense Department officials over intelligence on Iraq have been simmering for months.

But with the Oct. 7 letter, sent in the name of the director, George J. Tenet, the divisions came into the open.

As some Democratic lawmakers sought to use the letter to challenge the administration's case for attacking Iraq, the C.I.A. told the Senate Intelligence Committee today that it would not declassify additional material the panel wanted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10INTE.html?ex=1169010000&en=a886bd130c09ef7c&ei=5070


editorial | posted June 20, 2002 (July 8, 2002 issue)
War on Iraq Is Wrong
In making the case for taking pre-emptive action against Iraq, the White House has been long on innuendo and very short on evidence of an Iraqi threat requiring such drastic remedies. What we do know is that since the Gulf War, Iraq's military capabilities have weakened significantly, to the point where they pose little or no threat to its neighbors, a fact reflected in Saddam Hussein's bid to improve relations with both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations inspections regime that operated in Iraq until late 1998 destroyed most of Iraq's ballistic missiles and nuclear and chemical weapons program. Since then, UN financial controls have deprived the regime of the money it would need to rebuild its military machine or redevelop the infrastructure needed to produce weapons of mass destruction. We know that the regime lacks the reliable means for using any weapons it might have. Of the 819 Scud missiles that Saddam once possessed, all but two were accounted for before the inspections ended. The regime has some short-range missiles, and it is suspected of working on longer-range missiles, but since none have been tested they therefore would be of highly questionable reliability. Even if Saddam had been able to hide away one or two longer-range missiles, it is not clear what he would hope to gain from irrational and ultimately suicidal attacks on Israel or his other neighbors.
snip
The Administration seems to recognize the weakness of its case and has begun to shift the rationale for a pre-emptive strike to the danger that Saddam may pass weapons of mass destruction on to terrorist groups that threaten the United States. Again, there is no evidence that Saddam has cooperated with Al Qaeda or other "terrorist groups with global reach," in the Administration's words. In fact, according to the State Department's own report, Iraq's support for terrorist activities is modest compared with that attributed to some of the other states on its list. As the State Department said earlier this year, Saddam has not been involved in any terrorist plots against the West since his attempt to target Bush Senior during his 1993 visit to Kuwait. Nor is there any reason for the Iraqi leader to aid the apocalyptic goals of Islamic fanatics, who are seen to threaten his secular regime and his bid for leadership in the Arab world.
snip
A Security Council-coordinated containment and engagement strategy--involving international inspectors and targeted sanctions backed up by the threat of international force--would be an important precedent for world order and a much better guarantee of security than a pre-emptive war whose outcome is fraught with dangerous uncertainties. Democrats and Republicans, and all citizens with civic courage, must challenge a policy that poses a clear and present danger to international and American interests.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020708/editors

"Bush Developing Military Policy Of Striking First: New Doctrine Addresses Terrorism"
Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Washington Post, 10 June 2002

The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The new doctrine will be laid out by President Bush's National Security Council as part of the administration's first "National Security Strategy" being drafted for release by early this fall, senior officials said.
snip
Inside the Pentagon, some officials suspect that the new doctrine may be acted upon sooner rather than later.

"I think the president is trying to get the American people ready for some kind of preemptive move" against Iraq, said a Pentagon consultant. He said it would not necessarily be against Iraqi weapons sites but might instead involve a seizure of Iraqi oil fields.

Rumsfeld may have captured this situation best when he declined to discuss preemption last week. Asked in an interview whether the U.S. government is contemplating preemptive moves against other nations' weapons of mass destruction, he replied: "Why would anyone answer that question if they were contemplating it?"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/ricks.htm

"West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields,"
Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson,
The Times (London), 11 July 2002

THE removal of President Saddam Hussein would open Iraqs rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil.

No other country offers such untapped oilfields whose exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western presence in Saudi Arabia.
snip
However, regime change in Baghdad will be of little value to international oil companies unless it is followed by a stable Iraq with a strong central government. Companies cant go in unless there is peace. To develop Majnoon, you need two to three billion dollars and you dont invest that kind of money without stability, one industry analyst said.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraq.htm

Mike Salinero,
"Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise,"
Tampa Tribune, 24 August 2002

TALLAHASSEE - One of President Bush's top Middle East trouble- shooters warned Friday against war with Iraq, saying it would stretch U.S. forces too thin and make unwanted enemies in the volatile region.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee, Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives.

``I can give you many more before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.

Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

``We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back,'' he said.

Much more important to Mideast stability than Iraq is Iran, Zinni said. Iran has been one of the leading financiers of Islamic terror organizations such as Hezbollah since followers of the Ayatollah Khamenei took American hostages in 1979.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/zinni2.htm

There are many more articles....because the debate went on all summer of 2002. So it's not like the Dems didn't realize what Bush was doing. The question for some was how to stop him, and for others whether they were willing to stop him. Some climbed onto Bush's bandwagon (John Edwards...which is why he ain't ever gonna get my vote, Joe Lieberman (he ain't getting it either) and other conservative Dems who co sponsored the IWR), while others voted reluctantly for the IWR (Kerry/McClellan/Clinton), while others voted for alternative resolutions.

[SaveElmer]

78. None of these directly...

Challenges the administrtion claims of WMD's...particularly biological and chemical weapons. Certainly none that was so overwhelmingly obvious to induce Senators to flat out disregard the explicit information they were getting from the CIA. The biggest bone of contention was nuclear, and there was pushback from Senators on that point...particularly from Bob Graham...but even he flat out said Saddam had biological and chemical weapons

So again I ask, if it was so clear there were no WMD's, why then did virtually every opponent of the IWR acknowledge the threat...?

You say:

"Some, like Levin voted for a more restricted Resolution (as Clark said he would have) in where Bush would have had to come back AFTER securing a vote from the Security Council, but did not vote for the Blank Check resolution. The point of the more restrictive resolution was to attempt to slow Bush down, give the United Nation more power in the decision of war, give more time for the American people to debate the evidence, and in effect hope that the inspectors could come back with a definite pronouncement prior to a war being started. "

This is all true, but neither Levin nor Clark had serious doubts that Iraq had WMD's and was dangerous....again this is about the proposed method to solve the problem, not the definition of the problem itself.

Not one opponent of the IWR was aginst reinstituting the inspections regime, in fact all said that it was important that inspections be restarted.

"There are many more articles....because the debate went on all summer of 2002. So it's not like the Dems didn't realize what Bush was doing. The question for some was how to stop him, and for others whether they were willing to stop him. Some climbed onto Bush's bandwagon (John Edwards...which is why he ain't ever gonna get my vote, Joe Lieberman (he ain't getting it either) and other conservative Dems who co sponsored the IWR), while others voted reluctantly for the IWR (Kerry/McClellan/Clinton), while others voted for alternative resolutions."

This is not a bad analysis of the decision making process here perhaps...these issues are not black and white. Saddam had used WMD's on at least 10 occasions, had not cooperated during the time inspectors were in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, no inspectors had been in Iraq between 1998 and 2002, and the Congress was receiving very explicit, detailed reports from the CIA on WMD's in Iraq...which few in the Senate challenged. And those that did, focused on the nuclear capability.

There was a worry in the runup to the IWR vote about Bush's intentions, which is why they went on a charm offensive in the two or three months to the runup to the vote, claiming this was not a prelude to war etc...certainly a pack of lies. Also if you read the floor statements of many of the Democratic Yes votes you can see they did not buy the Iraq-Al Qaida link.

My point here is not to claim the Yes vote on the part of Democrats was the right thing to do in the end. Clearly trust in Bush to do what he said was wildly misplaced.

But, there is no evidence that most of these Senators were voting for an immeidate war in Iraq, or for the concept of preemption...most made that crystal clear in their statements. And in fact between late September 2002 right up to the start of the war, Iraq, under military threat again, allowed inspectors back in. George Bush short-circuited that process by invading.

The debate here usually goes like this...

Those that voted against the IWR are liberal heroes who saw through every lie that the Bush administration was telling....

Those that voted for the IWR were simply trying to help themselves politically, they were voting to support the Illegal war in Iraq, and had no qualms about sacrificing American soldiers to achieve that end...

Both of these characterizations are wrong...

IWR opponents as a group did not see through Bush lies on WMD's. Virtually every statement made by them explaining their opposition to the IWR conatined a caveat that they agreed Saddam was a threat and likely had WMDS, and that it was vital he be disarmed...their objection focused on the correct fear that Bush would misuse the authority he was being given...

IWR supporters in general were not voting for the war, were not voting to support preemptive war as a concept. They were making the tough decision to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and give him leverage to reinsert inspectors. No inspection had been successful without the threat of force, as Scott Ritter has said.

The notion that men like Max Cleland and John Kerry who had experienced war first hand and still carried the wounds from it were voting for strictly political reasons is laughable.

It's really easy to look back on that period, knowing what we now know about the lies these people told, and say how easy it should have been in October 2002 to see through all of this. Well most of that evidence did not come to light until 2003...yellowcake, Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke etc...there was obviously some debate about it beforehand, and Scott Ritter was making his assertions. But this was not really authoritative in nature, and on the other side Congress was receiving these very explicit reports from the CIA that even opponents acknowledged was pretty compelling. And at the time, there was no serious reason to distrust George Tenet, serving as he had under Bill Clinton.

I just wish the debate around here, and the characterization of people was more in tune with that actual situation, than the caricatures that get tossed around , and that have become comventional wisdom.

[leftofthedial]

69. google is your friend. lots of nouns here

"At the time, I knew and most posters here knew, that the bastards were lying, that they were executing the plan spelled out by PNAC, that Ritter, Blix and other inspectors had found no WMD, that the aluminum tubes were not for nukes, that the yellowcake story was a hoax, that bush himself, not Saddam, had made inspectors leave, that the UN was not on our side, that no western ally other than poodle Blair was supportive of invading Iraq, that IWR was a guarantee that king george would invade, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that the bush cabal had grotesquely politicized "terror" at every turn, that Iraq posed zero threat to the US or even its weaker neighbors, that repukes had given Saddam what chemical weapons he ever had, that the occupation would be FAR more difficult than the invasion and that the bush cabal had interest in oil, not democracy."

your objections are disingenuous at best. My daughter and I just watched F911 (again for me, first time for her). I'd forgotten just how blatantly obvious the lies were AT THE TIME. (He started work on the film well before IWR.) Ritter's book with Will Pitt. Ritter in the media. Blix in the media. Any random sampling of political threads at DU at the time.

[SaveElmer]

72. Evidence which came to light...

After October 2002...Blix's report was in 2003, Richard Clarke 2003 and 2004, Joseph Wilson 2003...and on and on...

You are making an argument against the IWR which passed in October of 2002 based on evidence which was not even gathered until 2003!

Do you believe then that even OPPONENTS of the IWR were lying when they said they believed the intelligence on WMD's?

And if you want a comment on Will Pitt's book from the source...

Look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=605385#605633

[earthlover]

57. You keep quoting Feingold, but how about the rest of his speech?

The quote you made is from Feingold's speech opposing the IWR. I will include some more of the speech. Because he shows some of the questions that had not been answered by Bush.

PS....the rest of Congress was able to hear Feingold's speech. It wasn't as if no questions had been raised about Bush's plan.

I am assuming, of course, that the Senators who voted for the IWR bothered to hear Feingold or read about what he had to say....

======

...
But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
Mr. President, for some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.
....

Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already voted for military action. I have no objection.
But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.
....

An invasion of Iraq must stand on its own, not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
...

In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.
...

So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't make it wise.
I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.
And so this moment -- in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear either.

[SaveElmer]

58. Yes of course Feingold was right...

My point is...that those here who claim that it was well known Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction are not reading the timeline correctly...it was not well known, and in fact opponents of the IWR acknowledged the threat as well...

And what troubled Feingold also troubled many who voted for the IWR, and in fact they were able to get some additional language put into the resolution that in theory would have restrained Bush from acting as he did...of course it is obvious Bush was not going to be restrained by anything...including a no vote on the IWR...

Those that voted for it made a judgement call on Bush's trustworthiness...the wrong call it turned out...

But they were not voting for preemptive war, were not voting for an attack on Iraq, they were voting to give the necessary leverage to get inspectors back in. As Scott Ritter pointed out, Iraq had never cooperated without a credible threat of force...

The notion that 28 Democratic Senators, including vets Max Cleland, John Kerry, and Tom Harkin were voting for strictly political reasons, knowing their decision would result in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqis, is just wrong, and not supported by any evidence.

[bklyncowgirl]

36. It's about judgement

In assessing a candidate I'm taking his or her vote on this issue into account--or if the candidate wasn't in Congress--his or her pre-war statements.

I've always thought that my president should be smarter than I am. Since I saw through the bullshit and all of my predictions of what would happen pretty much came true, I would like to be able to vote for a person who saw the same problems.

It's not the only issue and I would consider a candidate who had voted for the war if he or she realized early on that it was a mistake, but it is still a major issue. I'm hoping that a strong candidate emerges who was right on this thing from the getgo.

[Bucky]

67. I'm not rigid, but this vote does show who was willing to defy the stampede

It also suggests who was able to smell the bullshit coming off from the case for invasion the Bushies made. We need a president who has the instincts to discern bullshit from a distance. Especially to be commended are Bingaman, Conrad, Feingold, Byrd, Levin, Stabenow, and Wellstone, who said no knowing they'd have to run again from Red or Purple states.

[IndianaGreen]

73. The path to repentance is always open to those that sincerely seek it

Kerry and Edwards have disavowed their war votes, and Kerry in particular, has tried to make amends in the Senate by introducing legislation to bring the troops home.

All the IWR vote shows is that those that voted for it, and failed to ask the hard questions that needed asking, lack the judgment necessary for higher office.

Democrats that opposed the war in Iraq when it was unpopular to do so, and that had less legislative experience than those that voted for war, have shown a higher level of political judgment and maturity. They deserve consideration for higher office!

[MADem]

83. I agree with that, but some people will NEVER forgive. They just aren't mature enough to realize

that people can make mistakes, and some people can even be mean and obtuse shits in their callow youth, who, in old age or reasoned maturity, then have an epiphany.

Of course, the qualifications for higher office, that's another kettle of fish entirely. Look at some of the prizewinners that the American people have put in the White House over the years.

I'd rather take a repentant Democrat who made a terrible mistake and realized and atoned for it, than the likes of the Monkey, who STILL thinks he's right.

Of course, it's never an either-or choice, at least at the outset....the debates will tell the tale.

[Pithy Cherub]

84. Edwards has not even begun

to Atone in full measure. He's running for president and hoping against hope enough people are not aware that his mea culpas range to co-sponsoring one of this nation's biggest foreign policy blunders while he disdained his own party's elder on the issue. He apologized years after he made such a fuck up not and his awareness of how the public had turned. Anyone can forgive him, but only the less sentient would forget it as if the apology mitigates the rivers of blood caused by a belief in Bush. Edwards is nowhere near atonement as that will take the remainder of the rest of his life and he's using his time now to say please reward his poor judgment and lack of courage by letting him be president. That is self-aggrandizing not atoning.

[MADem]

85. Well, I wasn't speaking with ANY particular candidate in mind. My remarks were more geared to those

people who are just as bad as that whacky fucking wingnut lady on CSPAN who couldn't win a debate so she put her fingers in her ears and yelled "Lalallalalalalalalalalala I can't HEEEEEAAAAAAAAAR you!!!"

I think the stakes are high enough that it's important that we listen to each one of the candidates, really, truly listen--because ANYONE can have a good idea or three. Not go in with knee-jerk notions that because this one or that one ONCE felt such-and-such a way, that they will forevermore have NO MORE good ideas. After all, Tipper Gore wanted Frank Zappa's head once upon a time--and plenty of folks thought she was an ass, a dork, a geek, a jerk and that she'd never recover from that business.

I mean, look at Jack Murtha, hero to many here, gutsy and brave fellow, and rightfully so. The same people who hoist him on high for his Iraq War stance would have gleefully tossed him off a cliff while bellowing "DINO!!! DINO!!!!" in 2000 for his anti-choice stance, his rabidly pro-defense department stance, to say nothing of the guilt-by-association dealings of his brother, the DoD lobbyist.

People do enjoy second and third acts. Look at Robert Byrd. It's only the stupid tighty righties who still bring up his callow youth when he bought his outerwear in the linens department....and he's done so much more since those dreadfully foolish days.

I'm going to listen to all of them, and listen extra-carefully to the ones that I'm predisposed to like "less" than my easy favorites. I'm not going to prejudge like the GOP do...I think the debate will hone opinions, push the debate forward, and make the ultimate victor of the primary a better candidate.

[Pithy Cherub]

87. A life is made of acts big and small

and that is a wonderful perspective of understanding that in all its permutations. Because people who have made errors in judgment should not be judged solely through that the bad point is valid as long as their new actions align with their words. The 2008 presidential campaign began as soon as the 2004 one was over and some candidates have taken up issues that heretofore were not part of their public repertoire in the past. After demonstrating poor judgment with an aye vote, each deserves keen observation as to understanding their motivations over a period of time. Running for president to atone is a non-starter.

For me in specific, Senator Kerry, exemplifies the fact that he is truly trying to atone. What dilutes the IWR vote is whether the actions aling in consistency over time - Byrd worked for a long time to regain his Honor, or George McGovern after the Tonkin resolution became credible. Some people are trying to rush the process because it is so painful that a candidate of choice has such a distinctive albatross around their necks - it is up to each candidate to determine how best to demonstrate that vote was an aberration rather than an indicator of future performance. Some are never going to clear that bar because the goal of being president guides therir words and actions. I will listen to all candidates but with a very discerning ear on what is said and a keen eye on what is done.

[MADem]

88. I do hope no candidate is running just to atone, really. If they are, it will become

glaringly evident, and they'll sink like a stone early on....unless they're an American Idol finalist---and then they just might win, given the electorate and their priorities, sometimes~!!!

Some run just to make points that need to be made and deserve to be heard--Kucinich and Sharpton are examples who are long shots on a good day, but who really add to the debate and force the others to hone their viewpoints. Some run with an idea that they'll be able to shape the agenda, consolidate their political power, or maybe get a job in the party structure, or the Cabinet of the ultimate winner.

I'm looking forward to the debates, and can't wait to hear from the old and the new faces. I hope the ideas fly thick and fast...!

[lojasmo]

77. Friggin' fools.....that's why. EOM

[Zodiak]

79. Here is the test for me

it is not the IWR, but the willingness to incude those that were against the war from the beginning in the public debate and seriously consider our positions.

What I do not want to hear from IWR voters is how the "left" is fringe and should not be heeded because they are out of step with mainstream America. We were right about the war from the beginning, we have been right about Bush being a fanatical dictator, and we are right about the poisoning influence the American corporation has had on the public discourse.

But we are still shut out of the debate in favor of those who have been wrong this whole time.

That is the problem I have with some of the people on that list. Even though they were wrong they still insist that they (and only they) possess the wisdom and vision to go forward.

[1932]

80. Graham voted against it because he thought it was too restrictive.

BTW.

[Zodiak]

81. One more thing

There is an argument going around that the Dems didn't really authorize a war with Iraq, but only a process. As much as I want to believe that, the evidence does not support this hypothesis.

If the Dems had signed on to a process and Bush used it to start a war, then the Dems should have been howling about how they were fooled and never wanted a war.

They didn't...in fact, many supported the war all the way through the 2004 elections, even "knowing then what we know now".

We have to support Democrats because they are the only hope we have, but I am not a fool enough to put the same blinders on that those on the Republican side have done. Our leaders are deeply-flawed and risk averse, and should not be left to their own auspices.

[AZBlue]

89. I see what you're saying.

For me it's an important thing to remember when deciding which candidate to support, but it's not the only thing. If they have expressed regret for their vote and are doing something now to try to solve the situation then I take that into account as well (and right now, those who are trying to do something or come up with a solution are the ones I'm paying most attention to).

I'm just never a one-issue voter. And, there's never been a candidate that believed exactly the way I do on all issues - probably never will be either. So, I look at everything and weigh issues and make a decision that way.

[Tellurian]

90. I can see Hillary's point, though....

The fact of the matter IS none of the democrats that voted for the War made a mistake.
That is a complete misnomer and fallacious thinking.

Democrats voted with caveats and conditions attached to their vote. Their vote was predicated
on Bush sending inspectors into Iraq checking for bio-weapons and potential WMD..
With a pre-emptive strike on Iraq as a last resort measure IF a threat to our country was eminent.

Cutting to the chase.... Bush Lied- He LIED about the eminent threat to our country by Hussein.
And he Lied about waiting for reports from UN inspectors stating whether WMD were present in Iraq.
I don't recall ANY president in US History, outright, in your face publicly LYING to have his way.
..does anybody?

Frm. Ambassador Joe Wilson, is proof Bush Lied not only to Congress but to the American People.

Therefore, holding Congressional Democrats to a higher standard than those who voted "no" is
not exactly a valid assumption worthy of justifying your determination.

And please, don't kid yourselves. The Neocons had this outcome planned all along. They always have results
planned out in advance. (wish we were that unified and clever)

The biggest Sin of all would be to once again play into the hands of the Neocons...
No doubt this is their best joke played on the masses, including us, in a very long time.

The worst we can do is give them what they want..a SHAME on ME ending!

...

[SaveElmer]

95. This is correct...

There is no evidence at all that the 28 Democrats in the Senate voting yes on the IWR were not taking their vote just as seriously as those that voted against it...

One does not need to apologize for doing their job...

[CTLawGuy]

91. isn't it disconcerting that some people think

that the president should decide when to go to war, that congress should just turn over that power to him?

Also this notion that we "trust" the president or give him "deference." If we were supposed to do that, then we'd have a dictatorship. We have checks and balances because we are supposed to distrust the president and watch over what he is doing.

[Tellurian]

92. We DO have a dictatorship..

and the reason Impeachment is off the table.

The next step...Hitler fires Congress.

[LWolf]

93. Principles. Intelligence. Good judgement. n/t

[Richardo]

96. ruggerson, you are way too reasonable for the dogmatics at DU

Congrats on another fine post. Have a recommendation, on me :patriot:

[trillian]

97. Because it demonstrates bad judgment

And because over 3000 and counting young men and women have lost their lives, not to mention those that are maimed in body and/or mind.....because certain members of Congress put politics before the good of the nation.

[HEyHEY]

98. This post should be locked - for making too much sense

such posts are not welcome on DU. Go hit yourself on the head, drink battery acid, do whatever you gotta do to not think in such a reasonable capacity... then come back.