Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If I knew that the war resolution would lead to war, then how come

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 07:32 AM
Original message
If I knew that the war resolution would lead to war, then how come
Edited on Tue Dec-09-03 07:32 AM by trumad
my fellow Democrats sitting in the Senate did not? Maybe it's the DU effect on my brain back in the days of that vote, but I was certainly informed enough not to trust the Neo-Cons sitting in D.C. I knew about the PNAC and the AEI thanks mostly to the brilliant folks here at DU.

I keep hearing politicians who voted for the Res stating that they trusted the President and they voted thinking that he wouldn't go in unilaterally. LOL

Didn't any of these brillant politicos know what we knew here at DU....AND didn't they know that the real President/Cheney was a major kingpin at the PNAC.... OK..so they trusted Numnuts Bush...But could they trust Cheney?

I'm sorry, but I simply do not buy todays explanation of why my fellow Dems voted for the War resolution. I thought yesterday and today that they voted for it because they thought it would have been political suicide to not vote for it...PERIOID! MHOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ThirdWheelLegend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dennis Ku.... ahh nevermind..
Do I really need to say it?


TWL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. He's not a senator
the post was fairly direct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. The was a line in the IWR that said in effect
If the president determines that all other means have not been successful, then he is authorized to use military means.

If the president determines

IF GEORGE W. BUSH DETERMINES


They didn't know Bush's intentions?

PUHLEASE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Again...
Bush was just the pawn.... They trusted Cheney and his Neo-Con gang,,,,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. If they only read DU...
Edited on Tue Dec-09-03 10:15 AM by alg0912
...they would've seen what we recognized over a year ago - that Bushco had only ONE intention, and that was war.

I understand what the IWR was about, but why, oh why did they trust Bushco?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. Can not any menber of any party stand for some thing and stick to it.
They do drive me nuts.:crazy: :crazy: and I am going more:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. More on this
How would we feel if Our Dem Politicians who voted for the war res just simply said that they voted for it because it would have been political suicide )at the time) not to vote for it?

At least that's an honest answer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Seems to me I recall Wellstone saying this but he did not vote....
as the rest did. Well he was always sort of off the wall, Wellstone, but that is why I always liked him so. He belied things and stayed with them.We do need people like that even if most will give in to often.It is alway ease to go with the flow so to speak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pale Blue Dot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. This is exactly my problem, trumad
WE all knew what the war resolution was really meant to accomplish. WE all knew that Bush should never be trusted. WE all knew that Bush would eventually go to war, with or without the resolution and with or without U.N. support. And we're not Washington insiders!

That is why I cannot support anyone who voted for the resolution in the primary, no matter what their act of contrition is now. They should have known THEN, like we did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Look
Folks make mistakes and believe me, this one was a whopper... But I believe that if folks are truly honest about their mistakes then it's easier to forgive...

I simply do not buy the explanation that they trusted Bush... I think it makes them look ignorant as hell! Bob Grahmn in my mind went with the approach that his fellow Dems in the Senate should have took... He look around and said wait a minute...there are far more greater dangers out there than Saddam Hussien...Why are we even focusing on this guy?... SO..he voted against the res....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. They knew.
The tip-off wasn't in the content of what the Bushees were telling us...it was in their method. Their story was changing all the time, and they started talking about invading Iraq before they even gave a reason at all. It was obvious that they wanted a war, and they wanted business opportunities for their buddies. They were being opportunistic. Any intelligent person could see that- most were just afraid to say so, lest they be labeled "unpatriotic."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheesehead Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
8. The whole plan was out there in the PNAC letters
With Uncle Dickie's "Hancock" at the bottom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. exactly!
exactly...exactly...exactly... And who was one of the kingpins of the PNAC.... Dickie Cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
11. Yah, I can't buy those excuses either. Bush nearly destroyed Texas
while Governor and he was a failure at everything else he did. Politicians LIVE to know this stuff about other politicians. They knew he was inept. That's why I have felt from early on that many of our Dems work for the GOP, or at minimum are PNAC adherants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Nah....they're just <profanity coming up>
bitch-ass motherfuckers.

They sold out to their own fear.

Hard to believe we have those in our party who are trying to sell out AGAIN.

DEAN 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poskonig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. 23 Senators *did* vote against the IWR.
Some, unfortunately, voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
15. Oh they knew
but thought that running against Bush and voting LIKE Bush would make it a non-issue. Of course they also didn't have to risk any of their loved ones lives either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. I also knew
Too bad I don't hold a senate seat of my own. Edwards didn't listen to my emails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyorican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
18. Everyone knew it was bullshit...
or have we forgotten the hhuge protests *before* the start of the invasion? Those senators that voted for this did so out of expediency, knowing it would be a disaster for the country. That's why they cannot admit their mistake now, most will think they'll do it again (and again...).

Unfortunately, that's why some good candidates from the senate arrived DOA, to some extent, when they had to stand up before democratic voters (make that pissed-off democratic voters).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pippin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
19. co-opted
let's face it, there are a bunch of Democrats who have been co-opted by their Repub colleagues--Daschle, Gephardt, Feinstein to name a few. Too long as insiders in the club, these people have completely lost sight of Democratic ideals and who they represent. Democrats need to keep track of voting records and notvote for these people ever again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. I agree with most of the posts about this issue......I have a problem
though....The biggest issue is regaining the White House and either the House or Senate. We may have to vote for some who voted yes for the Iraq invasion.

I don't shop at certain stores because of their affiliation with shrub...and the list is getting bigger...I am looking at the whole picture and thinking....geez..everything is imported...almost every business has a rethuglican tie...it's crazy and making me crazy.

Having said that..Dean got my attention at first because of his no war stance. Dean/Graham ticket sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RPG-7 Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
20. of course they did..
John Kerry (of the Kerry commission which investigated Nicaraguan contra cocaine dealing by the exact same pack of jackals who sold Operation Iraqi Oil) didn't know who he was dealing with? He was just a babe in the woods hoodwinked by the Bush cabal?

They all knew what they were doing. They were afraid to miss out on the big victory party and they had their finger in the air and figured a few thousands of dead Iraqi's wasn't worth screwing up their reelection bid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
21. You knew about PNAC in October of 2002?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RPG-7 Donating Member (168 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I think I did on 9/13/01 or so..
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. PNAC Statement of Principals 1997
Edited on Tue Dec-09-03 10:52 AM by trumad
Did I know about the PNAC in 2002...Uhhhh Yah..... I also believed your buddy Ritter in 2002.... and I'm just a little old guy from Florida......go figure!

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC