"If you actually trusted B*sh, we can't trust YOU"

[northernsoul]

I've had my rhetorical hackles up this morning about the Dems who voted for the war and are NOW crying foul as it becomes increasingly obvious that B*sh did them (and the American People) dirty. I really don't want to speak ill of any potential challengers to the B*sh monarchy, but I think we'll all be a lot better off once we get this matter off our chests. Here goes nothing:

To those Dem candidates who abdicated their constitutional duty and let a solitary madman set loose the hounds of war at his own deranged impulse, there are two equally disturbing explanations for your behavior:

A) You honestly believed a man who makes used car salesmen look like the very paragons of honesty and virtue, who used evidence about as credible as "natural male enhancement" e-mail advertisements. Are you also congnizant of the fact that there is no Santa Claus and that the moon is indeed not fabricated of solid cheddar? If you're genuinely this credulous please send me a check for $10,000 to help out my sick aunt. This isn't a scam, I swear.

B) You knew all along that the war sales pitch was a big ol' steaming pile of malarkey, but you chose to go along with it because you were SCARED. Yep, you've got all the intestinal fortitude of a eight year old kid on a roller coaster ride who's just eaten his own weight in cotton candy and washed it down with a gallon or two of Mountain Dew. You've got all the backbone of a chocolate eclair. You've got the heart of a boiled turnip. You thought that if you kissed backside of the bully's Wranglers long enough, he might stop beating you up and taking your lunch money. Well soo-prise, soo-prise, you were wrong. Your only reward for your profile in gutlessness was a swift kick in the teeth and wedgie you had to pry out with a crowbar. Guess what? Liars lie and bullies bully. If you don't know that by now, you've got nobody to blame but your own damn self so don't come crying to us in the hopes that we'll give you a glass of warm milk whilst patting you on the head and saying "there, there - would the Democratic nomination make you feel all better?"


COURAGE is the watchword of the day, friends. Let those who have been found wanting in that area know that they shall go no further on our watch.

[newyorican]

1. yep

Those that voted to give Bush a blank check are either stupid or in on it. Step right up and pick your poison.

On Edit: spelling

[kentuck]

2. I think you make some good points...

unfortunately...

[meegbear]

3. That only leaves one candidate ..

looks like I'm voting for Sharpton.

[newyorican]

7. actually...

that leaves Sharpton, CMB and Dean. That explains some the "mo" behind the Dean campaign. Sorry Senators and Dicky...but in this area even Sharpton and CMB have higher cache than you do. Pretty damn pathetic if you stop to think about it.

[northernsoul]

10. and Kucinich

I'm a Dean guy myself, but I have to give DK his props when he deserves 'em

[annagull]

21. Also leaves Bob Graham--he didn't vote for it, either

So, we've got Dean, Graham, Kucinich, Reverend Al and Carol MB.

[sangh0]

30. Actually, Dean said Bush* should have "benefit of the doubt"

when it came to Bush*'s motive.

http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm

Guess what, people?

Phrases like "benefit of the doubt" are political rhetoric. What the words actually mean count for much less than the circumstances under which they're spoken.

[msmcghee]

4. Take a deep breath.

I did not believe the * administration either and like most here believed it was bullshit. But we at DU have a special hatred for the neo-cons that until now most Americans have been blind to.

But still, at the time and in that context, the crooks were saying they had incontrovertible proof (that they could not disclose for national security reasons) that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. Most Americans belived that as did most of the meida - even though some were questioning it. But even they were hedging their bets, only saying "yes, but . . " instead of "this is a pack of lies".

All I'm saying is that as much as I (we) despise this administration they were calling the shots because that is their position to be out in front on threats to security. For a dem to outright call them liars at that time (with no evidence to prove it, just circumstantial) would be called by the whore press as a cheap political attack at a time when our nation needs to come together in defense from the "terrarists". They (Rove) had all the cards and it was dangerous for us to call their (possible) bluff.

They (most dem pols) did the best they could based on the cards that were showing - they played it safe - knowing that this could all come back to kick their (*Bushies') asses if they were lieing. Look what's happening.

Yes, 200 plus Americans and 3000 or more Iraqis have died. But Iraq could have had some bio or chem weapons stashed someplace and could possibly have unleashed them in Grand Central Station in NY. If that had happened, after strong dem opposition to the resolution, I gurantee you it would be at least fifty years before another dem ever had a chance to run for president. (I would not even put it past the *Bushies to stage such an event if they thought it was politically necessary to advance their agenda and remian in power.)

I think they (dems) made the right decision by reluctantly going along with the resolution - based on *shrubs assurances that it was necessary - showing a non-partisanship that everyone knows the repukes did not show in the same circumstances (as in 1998).

Don't let your hatred for *Bush destroy those on our side who are our allies. I know, I have a hard time with that too.

[newyorican]

8. well they *could* kick W in the ass...

if they had not tied both feet behind their backs by voting for the resolution. Hammer him too hard and your judgement can be questioned, too soft and you're "rethug-lite".

[Eloriel]

12. Why are you spouting Rightwing Talking Points?

But still, at the time and in that context, the crooks were saying they had incontrovertible proof (that they could not disclose for national security reasons) that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. Most Americans belived that as did most of the meida - even though some were questioning it. But even they were hedging their bets, only saying "yes, but . . " instead of "this is a pack of lies".

Errr, ALMOST everyone at DU knew. The WORLD knew. The CIA and DIA were leaking their concerns; retired spooks and retired military and people like Scott Ritter were doing their utmost to get the word out: Iraq is NOT a threat; Iraq HAS no WMD.

Where were you? Apparently not at DU.

All I'm saying is that as much as I (we) despise this administration they were calling the shots because that is their position to be out in front on threats to security.

And Empire.

For a dem to outright call them liars at that time (with no evidence to prove it

No one suggested that they should have called Bush a liar then. We're suggesting that they already KNEW and should have known, he was a liar.

They (Rove) had all the cards and it was dangerous for us to call their (possible) bluff.

No one suggested calling anyone's bluff. We're suggesting they should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution.

They (most dem pols) did the best they could based on the cards that were showing - they played it safe - knowing that this could all come back to kick their (*Bushies') asses if they were lieing. Look what's happening.

What's happening is that while Bush is going down, the Dems look like the damned fools they are.

Yes, 200 plus Americans and 3000 or more Iraqis have died. But Iraq could have had some bio or chem weapons stashed someplace and could possibly have unleashed them in Grand Central Station in NY.

Nonsense. Any WMD unleashed in Grand Central Station would have been planted by the Bush Cabal.

I think they (dems) made the right decision by reluctantly going along with the resolution

I don't.

Don't let your hatred for *Bush destroy those on our side who are our allies. I know, I have a hard time with that too.

Rightwing Talking Point.

My hatred for Bush will extend to those who are too stoopid, too incompetent, or too crassly political to stand up to him.

Eloriel

[msmcghee]

17. Let's not eat our own. It will be more fun to watch the pukes do that.

I said: But still, at the time and in that context, the crooks were saying they had incontrovertible proof (that they could not disclose for national security reasons) that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. Most Americans belived that as did most of the meida - even though some were questioning it. But even they were hedging their bets, only saying "yes, but . . " instead of "this is a pack of lies".

El said: Errr, ALMOST everyone at DU knew. The WORLD knew. The CIA and DIA were leaking their concerns; retired spooks and retired military and people like Scott Ritter were doing their utmost to get the word out: Iraq is NOT a threat; Iraq HAS no WMD.

Wrong, the world was saying maybe they do maybe they don't. But let the inspectors have time to find them, we don't need to go to war.

I said: They (most dem pols) did the best they could based on the cards that were showing - they played it safe - knowing that this could all come back to kick their (*Bushies') asses if they were lieing. Look what's happening.

El said: What's happening is that while Bush is going down, the Dems look like the damned fools they are.

Wrong, while Bush is going down, the Dems are looking like pols who put the country above partisan politics. Granted, they have to be careful how they handle it - or they will look like damned fools. Only a few hate filled folks (mostly here at DU) are calling the Dems damned fools.

El said: Nonsense. Any WMD unleashed in Grand Central Station would have been planted by the Bush Cabal.

In my next sentence I admitted to that possibility. OTH who's to say that some al Qeada group here in the US could not have pulled it off.

I said: Don't let your hatred for *Bush destroy those on our side who are our allies. I know, I have a hard time with that too.

El said: Rightwing Talking Point.

Are you saying that Rove is telling his minions to spread the word to us on the left that we shouldn't be viciously attacking our own?

Again, lighten up. I hate *Bush as much as you do. But we have to be smart - not just angry - if we want to win.

[Rose Siding]

22. See here's where you're wrong

You say:
"I said: They (most dem pols) did the best they could based on the cards that were showing - they played it safe - knowing that this could all come back to kick their (*Bushies') asses if they were lieing. Look what's happening"

BUT "most" Dems played it virtuously, not "safe"- by opposing the Resolution. -see #16

And condoning an unprovoked war for future political safety is dispicable! I AM looking at what's happening. After thousands already, people are still dying.

[newyorican]

24. I don't consider anyone involved...

with sending my godson to Iraq "our own".

[Rose Siding]

16. *Most* Dem pols voted against the resolution, bless them.

149, I believe, out of 254 from both Houses of Congress opposed the Iraq Resolution. Most had good judgement. Some did not.

http://www.clw.org/control/iraqvote.html

[northernsoul]

27. Deep breath taken

Yeah, I realize this was a bit of rant and I debated whether or not to post it at all. But this issue is sticking in a lot of craws right now and I think that the sooner we have a very frank discussion about this "within the family", the better off we'll all be.

I can see where you are coming from with many of your points, but I do have to respectfully disagree. I think that knuckling under to RoveCo with nary a peep was both the wrong thing to do and a major strategic error. I am philosophically inclined to believe that fate ultimately favors the courageous (but not necessarily the reckless), and that in our situation COURAGE will ultimately carry the day. Yes, it may be risky to challenge B*sh head on, but I feel to the core that failing to challenge him vigorously will absolutely guarantee an ignominious defeat.

In Courage we will find Hope and Honor. With Hope and Honor, Victory is possible.

[Avalux]

5. This is why....

...General Wesley Clark is looking better and better. He criticized B*sh and the Iraqi mess from the beginning. AND - he was right.

[msmcghee]

6. And did not have to vote for or against . .

. . the resolution.

[CWebster]

9. Every time you give them a pass-

You dis those who didn't vote for the resolution and took the heat. Why insult their acts of courage by elevating either a coward or a fool who claims they were fooled by Bush, as the leader?

[msmcghee]

14. Every time you attack other dem candidates . .

You dis those who made a very difficult decision. One that, if it came out the wrong way, could have wrecked their own political careers and set the democratic party back 50 years.

Why insult them based on their motivation when you can only speculate on what that was . . colored by your hatred of anything that appears to go along with the administration.

I have that same hatred. I'm just saying that we have a political system that is a winner-take-all system where the candidates, not the electoral process, have to make the comprimises.

I'm sure most of the dem pols would rather be ideological like us. But in this system that is suicide. Don't blame them for being smart and being sure they'll be around to represent our ideology in the future.

That's what Rove did running on "compassionate conservatism" and trying to appear moderate before the election. That's one reason why they are in office.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

23. Back off.

You said "Your shit doesn't wash---the assumption is there was the possibility of a threat, but it was remote since they couldn't make the case and couldn't afford to let the UN inspectors determine the findings."

You are confusing the hatred in your own mind with the reality in the American electorate at that time.

How dare you say that my opinion is shit. Neither is it a RW talking point. It's too bad that some here can't discuss a serious issue and only want to throw emotional bombs.

[CWebster]

25. I don't care about the damn manufactured consensus!

Hatred has NOTHING to do with it. We are talking about the truth, not the manipulated perception of it---when we count on leaders to wisely challenge those who lead this country into danger.

[msmcghee]

28. Yes, I know you don't.

But that manufactured consensus, not the truth, is largely responsible for the RW having control of the presidency, both houses of congress and the supreme court.

Continue to ignore that and fail to undertstand the nature of our political system and we will never again (surely in my lifetime) see progressives in high office.

Damn it! I agree with you. I hate what happened in the lead-in to this war - how truth was trampled in the political dust. I'm just saying that every one of those dems made the decision that they thought at the time was the best way to wage the war against the RW - now and in the future. It was a complex issue fraught with traps and dead ends. It is easy for you to second guess them - you will not lose your job for hating them then or now.

As it turned out - none of them seriously hurt their chances to take it to the pukes in the coming election. I think that's good.

Also, we all seem to forget that the resolution stated that force was only to be used as a last resort and that we would first work with the UN to go as far as we could. Of course, the neo-cons had no intention of doing that. But it was politically impossible at the time to succesfully challenge them on that.

Don't vote for Kerry or whoever is on your shit list, that's fine, but save your hatred for the RW, please.

[CWebster]

32. So, the grand strategy

is to reaffirm the lie?


Works like a charm everytime, doesn't it? ;-)


(It's true, however, I don't care for Kerry...can ya tell? ;-))

[msmcghee]

40. No, the grand strategy . .

. . is to aim your guns toward the right.

[newyorican]

11. that's the luck of the draw

All the congress critter got dealt a crooked that they misplayed. Tough shit. My godson is in Iraq right now because of stupidity or lack of backbone. I don't care which it was since either is a disqualifier for my support in the primaries.

[madfloridian]

18. My congressmen had thousands of calls against it, hardly any for it.

I was made fun of by their aides for being unpatriotic, then had to read the "talking points" letters they sent in response.

They did not even question his motives, did not even blink. I was called unpatriotic by both offices for questioning. I was so stunned at my Democratic senator's letter, I could have cried.

I later realized Senator Nelson is in most ways now a Republican, but I was naive enough then to think that since he ran as a Democrat that he held the views. He does not. He has now won awards from the US Chamber of Commerce for being pro-business.

I will not forget trying to discuss with them some of the articles I shared with them, which are now proved to be true. They ignored all of us who called.

Putnam is a Bush Republican who will never change, but in the last letter from him he did say the intel should be investigated. Nelson does not even communicate.

If all of us at DU knew the truth about the things Bush was saying, even last year, then our congressmen should have known as well. That is their job. They did not do their job, and it is not Ok.
They bear the shared responsibility with this administration and with the media. It is not Ok.

[annagull]

26. This is primary season--now is when we get to demand more

from our candidates. I personally can't believe they were "duped"into it, if a schlub like me knew in September this was all bogus, the I have to believe at least one of these guy's aides may have brought evidence to their attention. The fact is, most of those running for Prez in congress voted for the resolution because they were running for president. Lord knows the Dems can't be seen as 'soft on defense'. So courage is my watchword in this primary season as well. If the candidate becomes Kerry or Gep, well then of course I will vote for that candidate.

[Eloriel]

13. Excellent

Excellent, excellent, excellent. And thank you for saying it.

There are some really good lines in your rant.

so don't come crying to us in the hopes that we'll give you a glass of warm milk whilst patting you on the head and saying "there, there - would the Democratic nomination make you feel all better?"

Love it.

Eloriel

[robbedvoter]

15. Not giving passes, but I am glad they are all exposing the lie

I agree that it mattered then (I still respect Harking for saying he was deceived in March, Waxman too). The ones who insist that their vote was right are as good as W who insists the same 9cuz God ttold him). That being said, I am hoping that all candidates (even those I am not voting for - Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards - are going to keep it up about the lies). We need every voice at this time - and I will not bitch against the right thing being said by anyone (even Tweety's - "Ted Baxter")

[mdmc]

20. Don't side with the devil

if you don't want to take the heat. All those Democratic Bush supporters HELP prove the Greens right. Only the Greens speak of impeachment. Only the Greens offer a true difference to the GOP. WE (democrats; democRATS) have let our ideals be traded for electability. God, it makes me sick.

Now, elected Dems say only pro war dems are electable. Why even oppose Bush? Why bother?

[lastliberalintexas]

29. To an extent, I agree

At least as your argument pertains to elected officials.

But I think we lose a lot of voters if we target them with this. There are people who really did believe Shrub and the administration when they said that Hussein had weapons, could attack in 45 minutes, yadda yadda. Even more damning for a lot of people I know was the fact that Blair signed off on the deal. For many this was the kicker- yes, they thought Shrub was probably too blood/oil thirsty, but asked me "Blair is an intelligent, moderate fellow. Why would he go along with this if there weren't legitimate reasons?"

And these people are VERRRRY ANGRY right now. And their anger is directed at Shrub and the repubs. For the most part, they are giving the Dems a pass b/c they see them as being duped JUST LIKE THEY WERE. I think psychologically, a lot of people want to believe that the Dems were fooled so that they themselves don't look so foolish. (The ones I know don't give the repubs a pass b/c they assume Shrub took care of them and that they knew everything he did.)

Now while I believe that these people should be angry with themselves for not taking the time to be fully informed, and with the media for not doing their job of informing the public, and with the Dems who voted for the resolution, I am at least encouraged that these people are coming back to the land of the thinking. They are starting to question things. Heck, by next November, they may be Greens for all I know! And keep in mind that most of the people of whom I speak are in Texas for God's sake!

I would just ask that we give these voters the benefit of the doubt. They were manipulated by expert marketing. While I do not completely exonerate them, I don't think we should condemn them as cowards or fools either.

[northernsoul]

34. I'm only addressing congresscritters

who have a sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fell down on the job and now want us to help them obtain the most powerful position in human history.

I sure can't blame ordinary folks who have bills to pay, litte league games to coach, aging parents who need help, leaky faucets to fix, etc. for not getting the facts straight especially when the mainstream media has completely abdicated any pretense of journalistic responsibility and now serves as nothing other than the propaganda mouthpiece for the Kremlin on the Potomac.

My beef is with the folks who were elected to represent these ordinary folks and failed to do the right thing because they either don't have the critical thinking skills the good Lord gave a head of cabbage or because when it truly came to gut-check time, they struck out big time.

Also, the reason I posted this here at DU instead of writing something to the hometown paper is because I think this discussion needs to be kept "within the family" so to speak. I don't advocate Dems running around bashing eachothers' skulls in just for the fun of it on a regular basis.

[Octafish]

31. LOTS of DUers trusted Bush day after 9-11.

It seems primary politics have short-circuited the memories of many on DU. Several of the most anti-Bush people rightfully indignant over Selection 2000 were willing to suspend their outrage after the attacks of 9-11. Lo and behold, they put politics aside for the national security. Same goes for those in the Congress who had to do what they thought was best for the defense of the nation.

BTW: It wasn't just a matter of "beliving Bush." Clinton said Saddam must be disarmed in 1998 and had a plan to send him into permanent retirement. The CIA director then was Tenet.

[Cocoa]

33. the dems did limit the resolution significantly

One of the limitations was that it would only apply to Iraq, not the entire region as Bush had requested.

Another, I believe, was to emphasize WMD, and the threat to the U.S., over other considerations like spreading democracy.

[ewagner]

35. With due credit to Jim Hightower....

"...the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead skunks....

[NNN0LHI]

36. I would like to make an apology for my lack of judgement on this myself

When this was going on my position was to let the Dems do what they thought was right because they probably knew what they were doing. Look back at the old threads and you will see that this is the truth. I gave them the benefit of the dout. I should not have. It was my mistake, and I am sorry for taking that position. I was wrong. Living and learning is what life is about.

Don

[Demobrat]

37. They voted their own interests. Nobody else's.

They were afraid to be called unpatriotic so close to the midterm elections, so they did what they had to do to cover their butts. I remember somebody here telling me at the time that Kerry had to vote yes in order to get a seat at the table. If that's true, and I don't doubt it, it's one of the most despicable things I've ever heard, and no picture of him at an anti-war rally in 1971 changes that.

[northernsoul]

39. and guess what? they got smeared as unpatriotic anyway!

This is just like caving into some playground bully who promises to stop beating you up if you humiliate yourself by kissing his boot and then proceeds to beat you pulp as soon your lips hit the shoe leather.

You get pounded, and you give up your dignity. This is not the road to victory, friends.

[Pastiche423]

38. In the weeks that led up to the vote on the rag resolution

I got up at ungodly hours (for me) to listen to the Senate debates. I listened to The Senator speak so eloquently and knowledgeably about our Constitution. He spoke for hours, days and weeks, alone.

Senator Byrd knew the Iraq invasion was wrong for mulitple reasons, the biggest being pre-emptive war. As I sat listening, I could not understand why other Dems were not there to support him and our country. A thousand times, I asked myself, what were they afraid of?

Then came Ocotber 10, 2002. It was a very emotional day for me and I am sure for others. I listened to every speech on streaming video. Two speeches stuck in my mind. The speeches made by Kerry and Clinton. Both orated on the wrongness and negatives of the invasion. They made me feel, Yes, they do understand! Yet at the end of both speeches, they said they were voting no.

At around 1 am, my time (PST), the votes were counted. The DUers that were still up, passed around the list of nay voters. I still have my list.

It was then that I decided that anyone that had voted for this horrific slaughter, would never get my vote. Being afraid, naive or too lazy and stupid to inform one's self is no excuse to blindly kiss *'s ass and vote for the deaths of thousands of human beings.

The candidates for president that voted yea, do not deserve to be president.

[Mechatanketra]

41. Hear, hear! (pounds book on monitor screen)

I've been saying for a while here that the reason the Iraq war can arguably be used as a "litmus test" issue is because of what a farce the ostensible "case for war" was -- leaving us with a choice between three possibilities, that these Dems are (a) gullible, (b) cowardly, or (c) corrupt (the possibility you neglected to mention: that some Democrats wanted war for the same reasons Bush did, and not just for the reasons he said).

I think it comes down to conviction. When you've reached the point where you can discuss something as serious as a war, where people will be dying on both sides, in terms of seizing the best political advantage and keeping your polls high ... what we're really saying is that these people, deep down, aren't sure that Democraticism (for lack of a more elegant word) is right. We've got a big block of "Democratic-agnostics" who only sorta-kinda believe in the basic party principles, but have to always hedge their bets in case it turns out that the Republicans were right all along (tax cuts are good, welfare is bad, the free market will solve everything, etc.)

I don't want to throw these people out of the party ... but for Bob's sake, they sure the hell shouldn't be our "leaders". Sorry, no warm glass of milk for you. :-)

[northernsoul]

42. thanks for bringing up what I call "The Lieberman Clause"

which is that they voted to substitute the constitution for Charmin in all the Capitol powder-rooms because they actually AGREE with pre-emptive, unilateral, unwarranted invasions of certain countries that happen to be located on top of our precious oil and they like it so much the better if such an invasion also happens to be seen as a great favor to a certain other country whose name begins with the letter "I".


Better not let little Johnny play any of those nasty video games, though.

[aquart]

43. That's exactly how I feel.

And it also applies to the ones who aren't currently running, like my senators, Schumer and Clinton.

[Skittles]

44. THE F***ER STOLE THE ELECTION

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THEIR FIRST CLUE.

[northernsoul]

45. Don't hold back, Skittles - tell us how you really feel

:evilgrin:

"Well gee, Mr. Thug, I know the last time I let you set foot inside my house you crapped in the goldfish bowl and wiped your @$$ on the curtains, but I'm sure I can trust you now - after all you might call me a bad name if I don't do whatever you want."