I Refuse To Vote For Anyone Who Voted For This War - What Are My Options?

[matcom]

for '08?

my guess is 3rd party (for the first time in my life)

look all. WE knew this was bullshit. Downing Street Memo PROVES it. our lawmakers weren't "duped". THEY knew it, WE knew it. i remember sitting here watching the "debate" with you all on CSPAN live and watching (and posting) during the vote.

i remember sitting in a local restaurant with another DUer for lunch when "shock and awe" hit live.

i will NOT vote for ANYONE who lied to me about this war (and lets face it folks, they LIED to us when they voted for this shit)

don't give me the excuse that "they didnt' vote to go to war, they voted to authorize........"

its bullshit. they knew DAMNED WELL that chimp was going to invade, preemptively.

so, of likely candidates in '08, who passes my test? anyone?

[Andy_Stephenson]

1. Damned few of them

I too will be looking hard at the candidates. My litmus test is war patriot act, homeland gestapo, bankruptcy bill and the real ID act. The war is but just one facet for me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

68. And the underlying kneejerk fundification.

"Why we'd be seen as unpatriotic if we voted against the monies."

Ptooey!

[harpo]

71. Kucinich is an option for ya...he voted against it

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. Not an option in the general election

Unless you write him in.

[genius]

123. Dennis will get the highest votes of any Democrat in the general election

The problem is that the neo-Dems don't want him. They'd rather have some free-trade junkie who voted for the war. We need to take back out party from these people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. Just like he was going to in 2004?

He wasn't able to convince Democratic primary votes in 2004 to give him a significant percentage of the vote. What will he do different in 2008? :shrug:

[KaliTracy]

2. um... did the lawmakers have access to this memo or what was in it?

Weren't they just going by what was told to them? Wasn't the "inner circle" the ones who were involved in what was written in the memo?

I just don't think that it was that blatantly out there -- they might have known * was pushing the issue. If they thought he was fabricating that's one thing. If they found out later that he fabricated, that's another. We need a definite timeline -- Clark and others who have spoken out, we need their sequence of events in this line, too.

[matcom]

4. everyone on DU knew it at the time

and NONE of us were part of any inner circle.

go back a do a search of GD during that vote.

[KaliTracy]

9. i didn't come to DU until after the 2004 election -- but

I'll search on it. However I DID write to congress people -- and I DID ask them to completely look at all of the facts/issues....

and -- I wrote a letter (I never sent, and now wish I had) to our local paper (Cincinnati Enquirer) asking them to do their job when they put a report about the inaccurate British Research paper on page A-16 or some sort page right before the vote to go to war.

[matcom]

11. i suggest you also read Will Pitt's book

and note the date it was published:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1893956385/qid=1116166929/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/103-7836849-1223821

[KaliTracy]

28. thanks.

[Jacobin]

20. EVERYONE at DU knew it EVERYONE

Just by reading reports from other countries on the net, reading fucking NYT op eds by former Bush I people.

The propaganda was so thick it was OBVIOUS to anyone with half a brain this shit was made up

[KaliTracy]

57. while i wasn't on DU at the time, I felt something was up -- especially

finding out that countries that Voluntarily gave up WMDs have taken over a year to do so. Especially when listening to the weapons inspector state they they take air, soil, etc. samples for chemical residues and were coming up with nothing in all of the places that they tested. A person actually got cut off during on an NPR talk show bringing up Halliburton and the contracts that many of the "restoration" companies were getting. The guest got very testy -- said something like: I don't think that any administration would actually go to war for $$ that companies would receive, that's just ludicrous. Next caller?

I agree that it was very easy to see through the bullshit -- yet, I felt like I was a lone voice arguing with people I work with about WHY the Dixie Chicks should not be banned when one or more members happened to speak their mind, or with Relatives who felt that whatever the President says to do must be done. So why didn't THEY see through the bullshit? What was it about the arguments for going to war did people believe, want to believe, need to believe? We were already in Afghanistan, that's where Bin Laden was supposedly at, yet we switched gears, and troops, and went to Iraq, in which we were supposed to easily go "in and out" --

But wait -- Hawk Cheney had stated for YEARS that Iraq was not a place to be -- that there was no Exit strategy that was viable -- that there would be no way to establish Democratic order. And I sent this information on -- and on and on-- both whenever a station/newspaper carried the Republican "flip flop" mantra about Kerry and the war during the campaign -- as well as in letters to my Congress People Prior to them voting in the war.


These are the quotes I sent to various outlets and congress from Cheney and his statements about Iraq:


<snip>.... Even Dick Cheney has been quoted more than once against the US going in the Middle East for such a reason. In 1991, he was quoted in the New York Times, on April 13 that

“If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?”**

and more recently in an interview in 1996

“{I}f Saddam wasn't there, his successor probably wouldn't be notably friendlier to the United States than he is. I also look at that part of the world as of vital interest to the United States; for the next hundred years it's going to be the world's supply of oil. We've got a lot of friends in the region. We're always going to have to be involved there. Maybe it's part of our national character, you know, we like to have these problems nice and neatly wrapped up, put a ribbon around it. You deploy a force, you win the war, and the problem goes away, and it doesn't work that way in the Middle East; it never has and isn't likely to in my lifetime”**

<snip>

**(Quoted Information courtesy of Slate’s “Chatterbox” --- article by Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 4:53 PM PT) http://slate.msn.com/id/2072609

***

All I am saying is that who in the House and Senate had Direct Knowledge to things being manipulated to go to war -- and how many knew that * was hungry to do this, but trusted the intelligence being used for justification to be true?

If it's true that ALL of congress KNEW of the manipulation and fabrication (not just the push for war, but the fabrication in order to get us there), then not only should they not be re-elected -- they should all be in trouble too -- so Who could/should bring them to task on this matter?

edit:font typo

[Cha]

63. Millions across the World knew,

too, on Feb 15,2003 when they marched and in New York City's case ..We Protested(cause bloomberg wouldn't give us a marching permit and threw in an "orange alert" just for fun!).

http://people.cornellcollege.edu/a-free/feb15content.htm

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[matcom]

102. then you were duped

http://www.newamericancentury.org

:eyes:

buy some QTips and clean the "crap" out of your ears

[sandnsea]

116. Aren't you just special

You knew more than Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, and every leader in the world.

PNAC doesn't prove Iraq didn't have WMD. Any more than PNAC proves Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

You guys that say you KNEW have the luxury of spouting off at the mouth without being responsible for the consequences of being wrong and that's about it.

[matcom]

122. ummmm i do believe Ritter wrote a book with WILL PITT

well before the war started saying EXACTLY the opposite

oh, and i was at the anti-war march, in D.C. BEFORE the war

get that? FIRST TIME IN HISTORY AN ANTI WAR MARCH TOOK PLACE BEFORE A WAR!

get it?

good.

[sandnsea]

130. Uh, no

I've had this discussion with Will. He said he doesn't understand Scott's previous statements about the existence of WMD in Iraq. Also, I heard Scott Ritter with my own two little ears on Phil Donahue's show where he said he didn't know whether there were WMD in Iraq or not. The point he was making is that they weren't there in the amount Bush was stating and that inspectors could guarantee the country was clean of WMD if the US would let them do their job.

Have you answered the question about the existence of PNAC proving Iran doesn't have WMD? Did I miss it?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

136. Since I'm such an asswipe

and obviously too stupid to read, maybe you could just answer that little question whether there is or isn't WMD in Iran?

Don't tell me when I came to the party. DU is not the end all of the world, online or off.

[matcom]

137. WMD?

of course. see WE supplied Iraq Iran with that shit. (then the inspectors got it out (of Iran Iraq). WE were on the OTHER side of THAT "conflict". Oh, and BTW.... it wasn't NERVE agent that got the Kurds, but BLOOD agent. Wanna know where THAT came from?

why don't you sign up to help in the Iran invasion? i did MY time. 19k M1A1 Tanker. I think its time YOU did YOUR duty don't YOU?

your right about DU but be careful who you THINK your talking to. some of us have some inside knowledge about these things.

[sandnsea]

143. Still no answer

Iran? WMD? Nuclear weapons? Yes or no. Since you KNOW so much.

Do you care?

And please, the 80's proxy wars aren't exactly top secret information.

[Upfront]

145. Who knew?

Howard Dean did. You remember don't you Sandi baby?

[sandnsea]

150. lol

Don't even go there.

It's a y, Sandy.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Some dems voted against the original war resolution;

Kennedy, Kerry ( famously... after he voted for it)there were others. But they all have evidently dropped their opposition.

I am returning the DNC's recent fund raising pitch with no $$$ and an explanation that I won't support the party til I see an explicit, principled position in favor of unilateral, unconditional disengagement.

[tx_dem41]

41. Ummm....Kerry voted for the resolution....

you're getting it confused with the ~$87B funding bill.

I believe this is the roll call from that resolution...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[still_one]

5. I feel the same way

For this was such a serious breach of the constitution I cannot and will not vote for anyone for president who gave this moran the authority to go to war.

Based on what Wes Clarke said I do NOT believe he would vote to give * the authority to go to war

Between the War Powers Act, and only Congress has the authority to declare war, those who voted for it violated our Constitution, and do NOT deserve to be president.

Here are those that did vote against the war:

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)

[Cha]

61. Chaffee! I had forgotten

that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That's really not fair at all.

You're COMPLETELY forgetting the political circumstances. The war was highly popular - in the 70% range. To not vote for the war was immediately risking your job, unless you are in such a safe district that it doesn't matter. Don't believe me?? Do some cross checking. Look at who voted against the war and present me with five Congressmen that voted against it that weren't completely assured of keeping their job in the next election.

Also remember that anyone who spoke against the war or the intelligence presented was immediately on par with Osama Bin Laden. Again, point to me someone that spoke out that wasn't completely assured of keeping their job. The war was going through with or without us, and do not think for a moment that there was ZERO possibility of WMDs being found. Even though there wasn't any evidence, that doesn't mean they absolutely weren't there. If our party didn't vote as they did and WMDs WERE found, we wouldn't have a modicum of hope today of winning ANY elections. We'd have about 30 Senators and 100 Congressmen left right now. Given that, again, we were NOT going to stop it, this was not a wise risk to make.

You weigh the risk - lose a handful of people like yourself or literally tens of millions of voters. Then you decide for yourself whether or not it was smart to vote for the war.

[matcom]

7. hmm "popular"

1600+ american kids dead

300,000+ iraqi's dead

fuck "popular"

[Upfront]

146. Right On!

Well said Matcom.

[flordehinojos]

10. Because people did not have the spine to stand up to Bush and say,

"this war is wrong. I am standing up to you in the face of what is morally right and i am voting against your beefed up intelligence against a man who did not commit crimes against on 9/11 and i am voting against your war--and that does not mean that i am on the side of OBL...it just means that I am on the side of truth..", we now find ourselves in the iraq slaughter house that we are in.

it is too bad that people lost their spine. they could have gained their honor and people's votes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

15. You mean to say that someone with the IQ, etc. of Hillary Clinton,

is not capable of EXPLAINING or TEACHING the people of New York State why what they were hearing from FOX news and the Bush whitehouse could not be trusted????

I knew it couldn't be trusted , and you knew it couldn't be trusted.
Clinton, Schumer and the hopeless Lieberman knew EXACTLY what was going on and they chose to play a cynical, feckless political game.

If everyone in the senate had adopted your rationale in the VN era the war would STILL be going on. Happily, they did not; they took risks, they EXPLAINED; they INSTRUCTED; they helped to build opposition to the war among the population. Yes, some lost their seats, but most did NOT (McGovern won reelection in South Dakota, SOUTH DAKOTA!!!, until the Reagan administration.)

And assume that your premise( that it was too risky to oppose the Iraq war resolution) is TRUE; what about NOW? They are still voting to support this thing.

[Itsthetruth]

26. So It's OK To Support Bush's Policies In Order To Get Elected?

eom

[rhett o rick]

30. I am glad u said all that. That is EXACTLY why we shouldn't

vote for them. They are our representatives. They are supposed to do the right thing in spite of the short term popular opinion. If they are going to just go with popular opinion, we don't need them. The founders of this Country were geniuses. They recognized that popular opinion was easy to sway for the short term. They built in a buffer. The Demo's want to stay in Congress and keep their jobs. They failed the Country. We don't need Representatives like that. They knew, we knew. They sold us out to keep their jobs. We need a new party. The Demo's proved they won't risk themselves to save democracy. Sorry i want on, but damn-it, we were sold out. Remember, this war is between the rich and the middle class not Repub's and Dem's. Whose side is your Congressperson on?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Wellstone put his ass on the line and voted against the war

Normie Coleman was recieving MILLIONS in money from the national party and the Bush gang to take down Wellstone. The race was in a dead heat and Wellstone still voted against the war. I guarantee you that if every dem was like Wellstone, we'd controll the white house, and the congress with supermajorities.

[MadHound]

88. You're COMPLETELY spinning what went on!

Seventy percent of the people were not for the war. In fact the majority of Americans didn't want the US to take unilateral action, the majority of Americans did want the weapons inspectors to finish their job before the US did anything, and the majority did want the US to exhaust every last diplomatic avenue before pursuing a war.<http://www.freep.com/news/nw/pmx12594_20030110.htm>

In addition, during the IWR debate and vote, the calls, mail and email was running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions across the country and around the world were out in the streets protesting. Yet urged on by their corporate masters, both Dems and 'Pugs voted to take us to war.

Thus, we have a majority of Congressmen not only aiding and abetting Bushco's illegal, immoral war, but are completely failing to do their primary job, representing the will of their constituents.

Sorry friend, but when you have an employee failing that badly, it is time to fire them, ASAP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

93. I have no idea where YOU were during the IWR debate.

But I was on Capitol Hill, and even in highly Democratic areas, war detractors weren't even CLOSE to 268-1. 3-to-1 was a closer ratio, but I was in an office that voted AGAINST the war. I guarantee you in many other offices, I was getting reports of the reverse, being 3-to-1 FOR the war. It was a party line split.

You missed, however, the part about your poll being conducted three months after IWR was passed. I think you also missed this very important statement:

Still, more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it were the only way to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Also, this Pew Poll from October 2002 (which is when IWR passed) doesn't back your assertion: http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=1302&content_type_id=18&issue_name=Public%20opinion%20and%20polls&issue=11&page=18&name=Public%20Opinion%20Polls%20and%20Survey%20Results
---snip---
Clearly, the president's major arguments in favor of taking military action against Iraq are resonating with the public. Eight-in-ten Americans believe Iraq already possesses nuclear weapons or could soon obtain them. Two-thirds think Saddam had a hand in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And by an overwhelming margin (85%-8%), the public believes that in order to deal with the threat posed by Iraq, Saddam must be removed rather than disarmed and allowed to remain in power.
---snip---
Overall, the public remains supportive of military action to achieve Saddam's ouster. Roughly six-in-ten (62%) currently favor military action against Iraq, little change from September and August.

[MadHound]

96. LOL friend, nice try

But a decidely conservative/pro-Bush think tank poll, backed by your supposed assertions is NOT reliable evidence. Here's some links for you:
<http://www.why-war.com/news/read.php?id=2331&printme>

As for as the support for the war, here's some more polling, just days before the vote:
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml> Note, this isn't from the conservative think tank Pew Research, but from a nominally non-allied media source.

Perhaps you should have gotten off the Hill friend, and out into the real world, where people like myself were working hard to stop this war. Perhaps you should have been manning phone banks, going door to door, and been out in the streets. From where I was, from what I heard and saw, there was an unprecedented outpouring of sentiment against the war. The majority of Americans wanted the inspectors to finish their job, they wanted the US to try all diplomatic means, then if all else failed, to go to war. Nice try on the spin though:eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

97. Pew is most certainly NOT a pro-Bush think tank.

Not sure where you got that. They're actually fairly well respected by both sides of the aisle. And despite your comments, I highly doubt that you ventured anywhere outside of your little area, and thusly have no idea what people in other parts of the country were thinking. Sorry, but there's no spin on this one.

[MadHound]

100. Didn't say pro-Bush friend, I said conservative think tank

It may be subtle, but is a difference. Anyway, they Pew definetly does have a conservative bias, one only has to look at their top brass to see that. With vetrans of the NY Times editorial page, US News and World Report, and other conservative backgrounds, I would most assuredly say that Pew has got a definite conservative bias, one that has been apparent to many on the left(excepting you) for years now.

As far as knowing where I venture, you have absolutely no clue to who I am or where I've been when. But nice try on the ad hominem. I'll keep that in mind when I'm in DC next and bump into you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. Yes you did!

Here's your own quote: But a decidely conservative/pro-Bush think tank poll, backed by your supposed assertions is NOT reliable evidence. Now how exactly did I misinterpret what you said?

NY Times is vastly considered VERY liberal... The NY Post is the conservative one. I think you're confusing the NY Times with the Washington Times.

And you're trying to tell me you went door-to-door all over the country on this issue? Really? That's QUITE intriguing. :eyes:

[MadHound]

104. Yep, you're from the DC school of spin alright

Yes, the NY Times is considered nominally liberal, though most rational people would consider it to be increasingly conservative(just ask Eric Alterman or the folks at FAIR). However it is well known within media circles that the NY Times editorial board is notoriously conservative. Get the distinction?

And no, I didn't go door to door nationwide. I'm simply responding to your cute little attempt at painting me as some know-nothing provincial, which I think is laughable when you don't know a damn thing about me.

By the by, do you have any other sources to back up your original assumption? Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post at the time:
"Bush's approval rating stands at 67 percent, down only slightly over the past month, and the poll found that three in five Americans (61 percent) favored using force to get rid of Hussein. But sentiment shifted significantly when voters were asked whether the United States should launch an attack over the opposition of U.S. allies, with 47 percent opposed and 46 percent in favor. Also, a majority (52 percent) said they were more worried that Bush would move too quickly to challenge Hussein, while 40 percent said they feared he would not move quickly enough."<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15678-2002Sep28¬Found=true> So while yes, people were willing to use force against Hussein, they didn't want to go it alone over the opposition of our allies, and they thought that Bush was moving too fast getting us into Iraq.

Again, look at question number 8 from this 9/17/02 USA Today/Gallup poll concerning an upcoming war<http://www.usatoday.com/news/poll917.htm> Sixty percent said we either shouldn't go into Iraq without UN blessing, or not go at all.

Yes, people were in favor of using force against Hussein, if needed. But it is obvious by now that the people were not convinced that force was needed, they wished to wait for the inspectors to do their job, and they did not want a unilateral invasion. These are much more refined nuances than simply saying that people were in favor of invading Iraq. Perhaps you should study the use of nuance, eh?

[enough already]

120. You want a politician

I want a leader.

[cascadiance]

8. I've always liked Patrick Leahy...

Even before 9/11 when he was one of the few voices of reason that lead the opposition to the Communications Bill that has produced the bastard companies like Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting and its unconstitutional Communications Decency Act rider on it. He was one of the few senators that looked at that bill intelligently.

He's also (along with Republican Senator Charles Grassley) one of the few that is trying to help Sibel Edmonds get her word out to the public through these fascist filters.

He's been voted in by a state (Vermont) that's produced Jim Jeffords who became an independent in the Senate, Barry Sanders, the only independent member of the House that might be the only or one of the few independents to win a senate seat election now that he's running for Jeffords' seat, Howard Dean, and Thom Hartmann (one of the best in terms of progressive talk radio hosts).

I'm just wondering though if he's getting a bit too old to consider trying to run for president at this point. If he were a bit younger, I'd be chomping at the bit trying to get him to run.

I still also would like to see Barbara Boxer have a decent shot too, though part of me wants to keep her in the Senate, where she's one of the few effective Democrats there now.

[welshTerrier2]

12. most Democrats will soon vote to invade IRAN

i'm wrestling with the same issue ... i will not vote for anyone who voted for this "war" and who continues to vote more money to sustain the insanity ... and soon, the parade of hawks will be empowering bush to invade IRAN ...

if you're looking for something outside the Democratic Party, check these guys out ... it's one of the best platforms political statements i've ever read: http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Clark has been warning about the Bush collision course with Iran

Just like he warned about the fallacy of the arguments that were leading us to war against Iraq, and Clark went public early about the PNAC daisy chain plan for unending Mid East related wars (Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Somalia, I know I'm leaving something out).

Check out Clark's testimony to Congress when he went head to head against Perle. This happened twice, once before the Iraq invasion and also this year where Clark pointed out that current Bush policy will lead (wrongly) to war with Iran and/or Syria.

[Cha]

60. Does Clark want the job

in 2008 ..starting in 2009?

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. It sure looks like he does. Look at this:

Clark gave some comments at a fundraiser for WesPac held in LA during the Caifornia State Democratic Convention about a month ago. This is a part of an UNOFFICIAL transcript someone made from listening to a tape of his commments:

"Many of you have asked me, am I gonna run again.

(Much shouting of Run Wes Run from crowd)

Well... well... I'll certainly have to take your advice under (into?) consideration.

(drowned out) Listen... I want you now... I need your help... now here's the taskers, ok? I told you about language. I want you on the website. I want you to help me. I've got to get some resources in. Because, I did not run for office... in a state office... I don't have the government taking care of travel and staff expenses and other things... so there's got to be enough money in there to help me get the kind of start... so that, if the situation's right, that the next time that someone were to try to draft me... that I wouldn't hit it cold.

I always joked about this last campaign being a campaign of "the Four No's." I had no political experience. No political strategy. No money. And no staff. (drowned out) And so this, this time, I'm gonna have the staff, I'm gonna have a certain amount of a bank account, to pay the staff to help me. There will be a strategy. And I have experience.

But I want, I want ya to understand... that I believe that no Democrat can win in 2008, unless the American people understand that we're a party of strong convictions. Democrats... Democrats draw lines. We say what's right and wrong. We're not just a party where everybody sort of thinks anything they want, says anything they want, and says, Gee, I don't agree with him, therefore I'm... you know, I don't like him, and I think I'll consider voting for John McCain.

The American people... will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when... they believe that Democrats... will defend other Democrats.

So we're gonna be workin' real hard, we're gonna put the base in place, we're gonna work the language, we're gonna work the issues on national security, we're gonna work the other issues that help veterans, that help change the election process, we're gonna bring participation in, and I want this to be a grassroots movement that grows! I want you all to stay involved in real Democratic Party activities, so that the next time it happens, it won't be that there's a party here, and a draft movement there. It'll be one... great... big... sweeping... March... on... Washington.

Thank you."


Now that is NOT a formal announcement, but it IS an indication.

[Cha]

72. Yeah, it's too early for a

formal announcement..I wish Clark the best of luck.

I started liking him at the Dem convention as I did all the Dems who were there.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Russ Feingold? John Conyers? Barbara Boxer?

NGU.

[stpalm]

14. Feingold

he is awesome.

[Pepperbelly]

16. the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed the ...

House on a vote of 414-zip and the Senate by 88-2. Were all of those lawmakers who voted for that resolution unworthy of votes?

I don't think so. I think the level of fraud in the IWR on the part of the White House was even more egregious.

[matcom]

17. if WE knew it was fraudulent....

THEY should all be jailed

[ClassWarrior]

19. Then do something about it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1784620#1784620

NGU.

[Pepperbelly]

22. I pay close attention and ...

am not taken to pretending that I knew then what I know now. At the time, I knew that there was a chance that Bush was lying but there was also, in my mind, a chance that he was not.

The public information prior to the IWR was mixed. And the Congress relied upon what we NOW know was tricked up bullshit from the Intel services after said info was stretched, contorted and edited by the neo-cons but for the people privvy to it at the time, there was insufficient information available to establish that.

If there was a chance that the info was real ... and at the time, there was that chance, not granting authority would be negligent to the point of malfeasance had they not acted.

[MichiganVote]

18. I'm with you matcom. I'm able to vote for Levin/Stabenow

The rest...vote them all out. Solving the problems of terrorism or of the need for oil do not require the deaths of thousands and thousands of people, most of whom are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. This goddamn congress has got to go!!

[Pithy Cherub]

21. You have touched a chord that rings louder than you know.

On DU many have strong opinions and voice them. In the public there is a great deal of silence. Either through a lack of knowledge, unwillingness to be confrontational or not knowing where to express themselves, people are quiet in the public square. In private, yikes. The media is noticing a collective yawn. Bush can't rally any but his faithful. The military is feeling the distinct slap of people refusing to entertain recruiting or their children going to war. The silence of the people says anyone who voted for this is in trouble no matter how sound the reasoning appeared at the time. Americans like to achieve success. As JFK said (sorta) the children of failure are orphans...

Won't find me giving money or time to any senator who signed on for IWR, Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, ANWR or anti-choice issues.

sp sp sp sp

[cally]

23. Any Dem Governor

and Clark and Dean. I haven't done the research yet but I would suspect most Governor's chose to not take a stand on Iraq.

[dogman]

25. Oh Canada

[Q]

27. You're out of step with the 'new' Democratic party...

...a party that wants to compete with fascists to see which side can look the 'toughest' on KILLING terrorists (aka civilians) and dropping bombs.

I believe that many Democrats...including myself...were willing to give these guys a second chance to redeem themselves by repudiating this SLAUGHTER sometime over the last couple years. But they're still pretending it's about democracy or freedom or regime change.

That they can LIE to us about these life and death matters and still expect our votes tells me that they consider us 'sheeple' and can't think on our own.

[OneBlueSky]

29. I'm with you, matcom . . . I'm also sick to death of being lied to . . .

particularly by Democrats . . . the argument "well, if you don't vote for Democrats, the Repugs will stay in control" no longer washes with me . . . when Democrats continually enable BushCo on the most crucial issues -- the war, the bankruptcy bill, Real ID, etc. -- what party flag they run under becomes irrelevant . . . I too will be looking for third party candidates unless the Dems can find someone honest to run . . . and that, to me, excludes virtually all of the names currently being mentioned . . .

[ClassWarrior]

33. Feingold?? Conyers?? Boxer??

:rofl:

NGU.

[mtnsnake]

31. No option. We'll lose again if you're not willing to bite your tongue

...should our only chance in '08 be voting for a Democrat who voted to support Bushco's illegal war that he lied about from the start.

Look, in a perfect world, shunning might work, but this is far from perfect, and we're going to have to play the game to win in the future, not to sulk in our past misery. Sorry, but it's politics, and it's called picking the lesser of two evils.

Shunning a potential winning Democratic candidate in 2008 because he or she voted to support the war isn't any different than a vote for the next Republican asshole who runs.

[Q]

32. And then in 2012 we be told again that we have to 'bite our tongue'...

...so that Democrats can win the white house or a few more seats in congress or....

When will it end? When will we say enough? Why should any American be expected to vote for someone that lies about the reasons for invading and occupying countries that pose no threat?

[mtnsnake]

34. No, we need to win first. THEN we can do something about what bugs

us the most.

We really need to do whatever it takes to defeat the repukes in '08.

Winning = #1 priority

[ClassWarrior]

35. self delete

(posted to wrong thread)

NGU.

[still_one]

36. sorry but that is the argument they used in 2004

and why it was important to vote for Kerry

Wes Clarke, Feingold, Barbara Boxer, and others are more than qualified, though I believe the DNC and or DLC will push someone on us again

I will NOT compromise my principle again

THEY VIOLATED THE COSTITUTION and the war powers act by giving * the authority to go to war. In addition, by not standing up to what is right, what do they stand for.

[Clark2008]

37. Self-delete.

[mtnsnake]

38. Come November 4th, 2008, I will bite my tongue if it comes down

to voting for another Bushite or voting for a Democrat who just happened to vote to support the war 5 or 6 years previously. I'm not excusing anyone who voted for the war, just trying to help regain power so something like that doesn't become an option ever again.

[Pithy Cherub]

40. Understand your point and your timetable.

But for some of us it was Novemeber 3, 2004 and we were done for the very reason you mentioned. We voted against principle and it hurt too badly to want to do it again.

What is underneath all of this is which political timetable is going to hold for 2008. For those who choose to extend more charity, good for them! For those who don't, good on us. The issue is to come together around ideas, ideals, values and those most credible to carry them forward. That is going to be a really painful dialogue because both sides of this debate have some very valid issues. How we judge credibility is really where 2006 and 2008 will be won or lost. :toast:

[Q]

50. And what will you do when the Dems get in 'power'...

...and THEY promote and support illegal wars? Will it suddenly be okay because Democrats started it?

We're on a slippery slope here. Either we protest ALL illegal wars...or expect the 'Bush Doctrine' to become a permanent part of American foreign policy no matter which side is in power.

[mtnsnake]

51. Good gawd, please dont suggest that Dems would ever promote an illegal war

if we were in power.

Do you really think for a minute that if we Dems were in power that we'd ever "promote and support illegal wars"? Have a little faith.

[welshTerrier2]

52. would it be fair to assume ...

that you're referring to Democrats after the time of JFK and LBJ and their invasion of Vietnam?

[mtnsnake]

58. It's not like I have a choice, is it? Good point!

Just the same, the circumstances aren't the same. Kennedy's initial intentions were to help one country from being taken over against its own free will by another country to its north. Was he right to go over there to try and help the South Vietnamese? In retrospect, hell no, we should've minded our own business, but as time went on he also had intentions of getting us the hell out of there before things escalated and then he was assassinated. It wasn't until 1965 that Johnson really dug our graves when he started those awful bombing raids on North Vietnam. It was right after that that Americans began to protest that war. Johnson was an ass in his own right.

I highly doubt that any Democrat in power would initiate, promote, or support a war such as the one we're in now where we simply invaded an innocent country for oil & coporate contracts. Innocent in the sense that they had done no harm to us, were not a threat to our freedom, had no WMDs, and were not responsible for 911.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. It was also when Johnson decided to send thousands of ground troops

It's hard to know if Kennedy would've commited our forces to Vietnam like Johnson did, but there's no question that his sending in the special forces did set the stage for Johnson's all-out war. Johnson's arrogance is what really led to him fully commiting the US to Vietnam. He thought that we could crush North Vietnam in months, allwoing him to focus on domestic issues. But I think you are right in the fact that neither Kennedy or Johnson would ever start a war with corporate interests in mind. Both were populists, especially Johnson.

However, no politicians REALLY got it right until Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. When Kennedy ran for President in '68, he did something that neither Bush nor Kerry did in 2004. He simply said, "Look, our policy toward Vietnam in my brother's administration was wrong. We fucked up, I fucked up, I'm sorry." I dunno about you, but I'd sure be inclined to vote for a guy who can admit that he was wrong.

[Q]

56. Many Democratic leaders (Kerry, Hillary, Lieberman)...

...support an illegal war right now. If they can't admit that it's illegal NOW...why would they admit it when they were in the majority?

You might keep in mind that many of us aren't against this war because we're 'anti-war'. We're against it because it's no more moral, ethical or legal than what Hitler did to Poland. Some wars are necessary. This one isn't.

[mtnsnake]

59. Had Bushco not lied about the circumstances, I highly doubt that Kerry

or Hillary would have voted the way they did. Despite any petty differences I may have with them, I have way more faith in them than that. Kerry and Hillary are good people, and there's no way in hell they're going to promote, support, or initiate any illegal wars period. Yeah, now that we're stuck there because of Bush's lies, of course some of them are going to say we have to stick it out and do what's best for the Iraqi people.

[Q]

65. I hope you're joking...

...and not really seriously thinking that Kerry and Hillary didn't KNOW that Bush was lying this nation into war? People like Kennedy, Byrd, Kucinich, Scott Ritter and many others were WARNING the Democratic party and the American people that there was no reason to attack Iraq...especially for the purpose of 'protecting' America. Certainly you're not suggesting that Kerry and Hillary were out of the loop?

Kerry, Hillary, Lieberman and the rest of the Dems who voted for this war have had over two years to ADMIT that Iraq was not only a mistake...but was illegal and immoral. It's too bad that they painted themselves in a corner and now can only mumble that we're 'stuck' and that we must sacrifice more Americans and Iraqis for Bush's Poland. They're cowards. All of them.

On edit: are you saying that because Kerry and Hillary supported the Iraq 'war' that it can't be illegal?

[Pepperbelly]

66. not everyone has your unerring ...

ability to intuit from afar the truth and to cut through all of the contradictory claims and immediately discern what is true and what isn't.

[mtnsnake]

69. Amen!

[Q]

79. Only you would say that it's 'unerring'...

...but in the case of Iraq I'm right. In fact...the evidence shows that Bush illegally invaded Iraq. Where are the 'contradictory claims' that it's not illegal (and immoral)? The only ones making this claim are the Bushies and those who gave him authorization to determine what is and isn't a threat and to attack Iraq.

On the other hand...why did so many Democrats vote against giving Bush authorization? What did THEY know that the others didn't? They witnessed Bush building troops on the border of Iraq. They saw how Bush lied about using diplomacy as he dismantled any attempt at negotiations or inspections.

The most Kerry and Hillary can admit is that Bush 'did it wrong'...not even close to admitting the truth. Doesn't it follow that if they can't tell the truth NOW that we couldn't expect the truth from them (about aggressive war) if one of them became president?

It's becoming clear why Bush hasn't been prosecuted or even investigated for his war and other crimes. Standing between him and the 'rule of law' are too many Democrats trying to cover their own asses over bad decisions. They can't admit Bush was wrong without admitting the same thing about themselves.

[Donna Zen]

92. Who said:

"Syria needs to be punished" ?

[KoKo]

135. Again, from another DU'er ....I really hope you're joking, Pepper....

because if you don't see the light at this point...well go over to DU Editorials and read this:'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=125633#125734

[PassingFair]

128. That's what we said LAST time.

My dream is Dean quiting over his muzzling and going third party. Every cycle that we put all our eggs in the compromised dem basket keeps us just that much further away from real change.
Screw the DLC.

[matcom]

39. guess we lose

because i'm not willing

[Hell Hath No Fury]

99. I already bit my tongue once...

when I voted for Kerry in spite of his IWR vote.

How many fucking times do I have to do that???

How many times do I put my own principles aside so that Democrats I don't neccessarily believe in can win?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

42. RUSS FEINGOLD!!

Vpted against the war and the Patriot Act.

[BuelahWitch]

109. Feingold also voted against the bankruptcy bill

I'd support a Clark/Feingold/Boxer ticket in any combination...

[Township75]

43. Some of the Gov candidates is my guess....

while some of them may have stated they support the war, I doubt any of the govs were given memo's and info that related to the federal level.

I am glad you posted this, because you are a "DU superstar" so-to-speak, and unknowns like myself can't state stuff like this without getting flamed and so forth.

As I see it, we have been voting for Dems that haven't represented our values for a few election cycles, and look at the position of thhe party now. We are the minority at the federal and state level...maybe even local. I would rather be voting for losing candidates that don't compromise my values than for voting for candidates that compromise my values and lose anyway.

If the typical pro war candidates turn up (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and so forth), I'm not voting Dem either. Im not too receptive to the "you'll then be helping the repubs win" arguement, as the repubs have been winning anyway when we hold our noses and vote party over values.

[ticapnews]

44. Wes Clark and the Governors...

Sounds like a good name for a band ;)

Governors Warner and Richardson didn't vote for the war, of course, but I have no idea what they were saying (if anything) at the time.

If DK runs again, he would qualify as well.

[Adelante]

45. I don't know who knew about the memo

But Clark was essentially telling the same story as the memo when he said on Meet the Press, in Rolling Stone, Salon, and other media, that the PNACers had gone to war against Saddam for WMD and 9/11 based on no good intelligence. In fact, whether or not they could even find a link between Saddam and 9/11 they had planned to go to war in Iraq -- this within a couple of days after 9/11. Wes Clark told the story of hearing this in the Pentagon and Richard Clarke and others eventually confirmed it from the White House end.

Wes Clark said this on TV, in magazines, in newspapers, again and again. Of course, he was called a nut job, goofy, out of his mind, and worse.

In his book, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire, he wrote about going to the Pentagon a few days after 9/11 and being shown a list of countries the US would "take down," by a three-star general. These were the days the overall strategy was being hatched at Camp David, which is also in his book. Then that same November, he heard from a senior military staff officer that the "plan" had advanced to seven countries, beginning with Iraq: Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan.

This is what informed his testimony in September 2002, against the invasion to the House Armed Services Committee, where his testimony convinced at least some members to vote no. It's also what sent him into national politics and to accept the draft to run in 2004. Clark was and remains horrified by what these people have done to our country.

Some here at DU will deny his 2002 testimony was against the war by cherrypicking bits and pieces of it, as did the GOP talking heads, but Congress had no doubt of it, which is confirmed by the recent hearings of the HASC, where Perle is called on the carpet for misleading Congress and Wes Clark is vindicated in his now proven predictions of what would come down on the United States if we preemptively invaded Iraq.

Clark has said many times he would not have voted for IWR and I believe him. That takes trust, because he was not tested and the Congress was. So that part of the test, we cannot swear to, although Clark is adamant about it.

I have no reason to think he knew of this memo, but as far as knowing and telling the story of what was really going on in the leadup to the war, he has never lied.

I hope you will keep Wes Clark in mind for 2008, Matcom.

[dajoki]

46. we are patriots too

problem is we have too many dems afraid to speak out against this administration for fear of being labled unpatriotic. the republicans stole the flag, churches, and anything else they can get thier grubby little hands on. it's time our dem leaders stand up and fight for what they believe in. i'm sick of "republican lite"!!

[Adelante]

47. Welcome to DU, dajoki!!

:hi:

[dajoki]

54. WesDem

thank you. GREAT FORUM!!!!!

[demwing]

48. Vote for a Governor

big state or a little state, it doesn't matter...

Or vote for a former VP...

In short, don't vote for a Congressman

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

49. I don't know, Nader?

[ClassWarrior]

73. Feingold? Conyers? Boxer???...

NGU.

[Dr Fate]

55. I'll likely suport Clark myself.

I agree with you - I'm sick of the excuses- this war SUCKS.

[BeFree]

62. I agree,

But just imagine Kerry in the White House. The war in Iraq would be going the other way already with a pull out date just about set.

Yep, things would be much more different had everyone pulled for our side in 2004. See, that's what happens when power resides on our side.

As it stands the next four years will continue to fester and all we can do is complain to leaders who are either out of power or to those in power who don't care what we say. We would be far better off with leaders who at least care about what we are saying.
We are all rest assured you won't be voting for republicans, since they all voted for war. Now that's saying something, eh?

[harpo]

70. Here's the lists of the House/Senate votes to 455/237

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/votes/?votenum=455&chamber=H&congress=1072

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/votes/?votenum=237&chamber=S&congress=1072

I would note that Kucinich voted against it while Clinton voted for it.

[Skittles]

74. I held my nose to vote for Kerry

I am not sure I can do it again

[Orangepeel]

75. anyone who wasn't in the House or the Senate

IMO, the next candidate is likly to be a governor, anyway.

[ClassWarrior]

77. Feingold? Conyers? Boxer???

NGU.

[Orangepeel]

78. I didn't say that no one in the House or Senate voted against it

just that no one who wasn't in the House or Senate voted for it.

And, in my opinion, the next candidate is likely to be a governor. In general, senators make lousy candidates. They have too many twistable votes.

[Donna Zen]

76. Resistance!

When Dean was dusting their brooms early in the 2004 primary, the DC candidates who had spent the past two years ignoring our pleas, suddenly sprung ears... but not for long.

And I expect, we will be told to mind our manners and give money again. and again.

My heart is torn. I don't want to enable the republicans nor do I want to enable the enablers, but I think I'm at peace with my decision to refuse to vote for anyone who voted for and stuffed this shit down my throat.

I did know that any remaining weapons in Saddam's arsenal did not pose a threat to the country. I knew partly because I helped in a small way to research Will's book, but I also knew because I was paying attention. At the time the congress refused to call Ritter to testify so we were all writing and calling and e-mailing and begging them to put him on their list. They didn't. To my surprise a general who I had hardly heard of, Clark, told them not to give bush a blank check for war. That any resolution had to include a demand for another vote.

Note: I live in the middle of the woods: I knew.

The night before the Senate was to vote on the IWR, I attended a speech given by Pres. Clinton. As he came on stage an announcement was made that both of Maine's Dem. representatives had voted "no." A huge cheer went up and then Clinton began to speak. He said a very curious thing: that while a president can't do much that they'd like to, they can always go to war. IOW, voting "no" was somehow a bad political move.

I've always remembered that moment. It was too strange.

And so my personal decision rests on several points: If someone who voted "yea" didn't know, they are either too dumb (not likely in most cases) too interested in their own political fortunes, or actually agreed with the bush doctrine of preemption which remains unchallenged today. And consequently, whatever the reason, they are unfit to serve. Period.

If enough of us stick to our own principals and refuse to accept the lesser evil or the deluded "yes" men and women, we may be able to once again, as we did with Dean, send them a message that they can't ignore. We may actually nominate someone who was honest, smart, and put the country first.

If we cave to the ABB/ABR, then we will fail to hold people accountable and have not done our duty to our country, our children, or our souls.

[Q]

80. You're right...

...at some point we have to say NO...even if it means losing elections. I'd rather my party be out of power than be part of the LIE perpetuated by the thugs running this country.

[Donna Zen]

81. Few, very few

If our party does not hear us, is it our party?

That is the question.

I fully expect that early in 2007 I will open these threads and be told by seemingly staunch opponents of this war, posters who railed a thousand times about spineless Dems, to get in line behind one or another of the bush friendly Dems.

Look at the threads now. Say anything and the charges of "bashing" are hurled with unthinking glee.

If the anti-war movement unites, then we will be heard again. I honestly doubt that will happen. So my heart tells me that this is not my party.

Until we start standing up we will lose no matter who's in office. Oh sure, we may scrap up a crumb off the floor on occassion, but joining the spineless will make the floor our home.

[Q]

84. I expect the same thing...

...that 2007 will be a repeat of 2004 and 2000. Why didn't the Dem leadership fight the obvious 2000 election fraud with all their might? Did they really think that letting the Bushies off the hook would HELP the party or the country?

The same goes for ongoing lies about 9-11 and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. "Bush-friendly Dems" continue to encourage us to stop asking questions about these issues. We're not 'allowed' to even ponder why Democrats joined the other side in leaving the WH out of the 9-11 investigation and inquiry. We're not supposed to talk about Bush lying this nation into war...because that would make those who gave him the authorization look complicit. So we have to go along with the illusions in order to be considered a 'good' Democrat.

[Donna Zen]

90. Accept politics as usual

...and you will get more of it.

Ya know... I can't believe I've arrived at this mindset. I fought the Nader memes in 2000, and in 2004 I was comfortable with ABB. Actually, I liked both Kerry and Gore's committment to the environment. But this war... oh god damn this war.

Who knows: maybe a miracle will happen and a we can unite to support someone who can proudly say: "This war is wrong and bush lied." Feingold? Clark? one of the governors? If we can't make that simple statement, then we are screwed.

Hillary... oh baby, saying I won't vote for Hillary! Ha! that reaps some serious charges of baaaaad Democrat.

[BillyDoc]

127. I'm a FORMER Democrat

Who was even on my county Executive Committee, and a Democrat for more than 40 years. I refused to support Kerry exactly because he supported Bush and his illegal war. It caused me a lot of grief, but I'm damn glad I did it that way now. Since then I've dumped the Dems and registered as a Green. I know, an exercise in futility, but I DO like their platform. And the Dems have clearly left me and run off with a rich cowboy.

I don't think it has mattered who any of us vote for since before the 2000 election. They have ALL been rigged since then. Which tells me that the number one priority for us all should be to regain control of our election system. We could do this, but not without some serious civil disobedience . . . and let's face it, that isn't going to happen. Americans are too comfortable, too deluded by the corporate media, and simply too beat down and cringing. It isn't going to happen.

I hope you have all given some thought to living under Fascism, because that is what you are doing.

[CWebster]

83. The simple truth

they will dismiss you as a "purist" for not holding up the illusion.

[mhr]

85. This Is Why I Will Never Vote For Hillary

All of the DU Hillary supporters, don't even bother to flame me.

I will not equivocate.

Our candidate in 08 needs to be an anti-war candidate not Repug-lite.

Lakoff says that you have to live your values to win.

We will not win with a pro-war candidate because pro-war does not reflect progressive values.

As is oft said, you have to walk the walk.

[Q]

86. How about an anti-IRAQ WAR candidate...

...instead of simply anti-war?

Many of us are specifically against the IRAQ WAR because it didn't need to happen and that lies and fabrications were used to take us there.

[mhr]

87. I Want To Vote For Someone That Sees War As The Last Of

The worst options for resolving conflicts.

Very few of our so-called Progressive/Democratic leadership see the world this way.

The bottom line is that I will not vote for an equivocator again.

I have now lived through almost five years of * with no job. I have survived. I am prepared to live the rest of my life under Republican rule before I vote for another Republican disguised as a Democrat.

[Mark E. Smith]

89. Pray for purity in all of your candidates

But you must ask yourself this: "Will any candidate of earthly origin ever be pleasing to me?"

[Donna Zen]

91. Will a life-long voting Democratic

...who is disgusted with the party's stance on the war pass your purity test?

[CWebster]

94. Really, as I was saying

It is the blanket excuse to apologize for a multitude of ills. Want your Democrat to show less deference to and more than a modicum of seperation from the Repugs? That would be demanding too much purity in some books.

[Donna Zen]

105. A Look at Feingold

(pssst! this is for the purity crowd)

Senator Feingold has consistently voted for bush appointments that I dislike. In fact when the Dems had more power in the equally divided Senate, it was Feingold who cast the deciding Asscroft vote. Yes, he said that he would hold Asscroft accountable, and I think he failed to that. Nevertheless, he is consistent in his philosophy of broad acceptence of a president's choice.

Pure--no. Do I care? Well, it would be nice if it were otherwise when it comes to several of the evil-ones, but it is what Feingold believes.

But when it comes time to stand up and be counted, when democracy is on the line, Russ Feingold is there. Patriot Act: vote nay, War: vote nay

These are difficult votes for someone facing a tough election, but he did what he believed was right. It was that belief that gave him clarity of purpose when he stood before his constituents; and it was his honesty that earned their votes.

What you call purity; I call character. So dismiss everything, sweep it under the rug to sooth your mind, but in the end, that is the very behavior on our part that has gotten us in this mess.

[CWebster]

113. Great points.

Feigold is splitting with his second wife and some think it will effect his electibility quota. But then, they seem to think that anyone who challenges the smirking nitwit is on shaky ground. Hillary certainly heeds their advice.

[mhr]

95. Quoting Myself

"I have now lived through almost five years of * with no job. I have survived. I am prepared to live the rest of my life under Republican rule before I vote for another Republican disguised as a Democrat."

[Mark E. Smith]

106. Your bouquet of roses from Mr Rove...

...will be at your door shortly.

How the Republicans have convinced so many that Democrats are really no different than them is amazing. Then again, they also convinced the country the war against Iraq had something to do with 9-11, so go figure.

[mhr]

107. My Beef Is With Democrats At The National Level

Behaving like Republicans.

BTW - you must not follow the news if you have not noticed the trend.

Iraq War, Bankruptcy Bill, Energy Bill(ANWR), etc.

[Mark E. Smith]

110. Hey, I'm not all that crazy about them either.

But all in all it is a pretty fucking weak excuse for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[mhr]

111. I Have No Intention Of Voting For The Enemy

But, if a Democrat wants my vote, they need to be a Democrat.

[Mark E. Smith]

126. As I said elsewhere...

Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, the only person deserving of a Pure Democrat's vote is Barbara Lee. And as much as I love and respect Barbara, she isn't going to be able to do it all by herself.

I attended a fund raiser for Barbara a few weeks back, and a question from a person with a viewpoint similar to yours was raised. Should we punish elected officials from our party for poor voting choices in the past?

She looked aghast, and said it would not be a very good thing to do. All it would do is help the Republicans.

And this coming from the courageous Congresswoman who was the only member of both parties to vote against giving Smirk war powers. Way back in 2001.

My advice? You're doing more damage than good with this horseshit. Please stop.

[mhr]

129. To Each His Own - If We Have To Start IU - Independent Underground

Then so be it.

[Mark E. Smith]

148. So is it goodbye?

Or just you revealing what you always were?

[mhr]

151. Born Democrat - Don't Know What You Are Talking About?

That does not mean that I have to vote for a Republican disguised as a Democrat.

[CWebster]

154. Interesting that instead of commending her for her lone stand

It seems you choose to dismiss her stand as "too pure".

If there was more support for her and what she did, instead of meekly enabling those who capitulate and triangulate at every turn, maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess today.

My advice? You're doing more damage than good with this horseshit. Please stop.

[CWebster]

112. It wasn't the Republicans

It was the Democrats that tried to minimize the differences. Centrism is a sell-out, because it sacrifices purpose for short term strategy. It was those Dems who went along with the Neo-cons, not us. But we are the ones accused of demanding purity? What about truth?

[Mark E. Smith]

117. Taking yr reasoning to its logical conclusion ...

... the only person deserving of a Pure Democrat's vote is Barbara Lee. And as much as I love and respect Barbara, she isn't going to be able to do it all by herself.

I attended a fund raiser for Barbara a few weeks back, and a question from a person with a viewpoint similar to yours was raised. Should we punish elected officials from our own party for poor voting choices in the past?

She looked aghast, and said it would not be a very good thing to do. All it would do is help the Republicans.

And this coming from the courageous Congresswoman who was the only member of both Houses to vote against giving the Little President his powers. Way back in 2001.

My advice? You're doing more damage than good with this bullshit. Please stop.

[ChiciB1]

98. This Info Was Out There As Early As 1997!

But after the 2000 Election too many people were "bamboozled" into thinking the DICK-TATTER was THE MAN!!!

This scheme was cooked up way before 2000 WHEN they knew the election could be RIGGED in their favor!!

I've often wondered why so many Dems fell for it, but then I wonder WHY they've waited so long to do ANYTHING to stop this WAR MACHINE!

There are very few who even stand up to ANYTHING, so to blame Kerry is ludicrous! As was said in another post.... THE WAR WAS POPULAR! You know, the PATRIOTS got to fire the GUNS! Too bad someone can't find the script for this horrendous movie!!!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

103. I'm there with you Matcom...

I was the good soldier in 2004. I closed ranks and voted for Kerry in spite of what I viewed as his wildly political vote on the IWR. (That wasn't the only issue that bothered me about Kerry, but it was the biggest.)

Thankfully one of my senators Boxer voted against the IWR, so I had no problem pulling the lever for her. Feinstein on the other hand -- she admitted that the calls from her constituents were running overwhelming against the IWR but she ignored the people who put her in office and voted for it. She will be getting the boot from me.

I don't know what to tell you about 2008. Personally, I will be looking at a multitude of things, with the IRW vote being strongly in the mix. If presented with a candidate who voted for the IWR but has since done the right thing by admitting being in Iraq is wrong and has an impeccable follow-up voting record, I might consider voting for them. If there is even a hint of "we really needed to go into Iraq" from them (are you listening Mssrs. Edwards and Bayh?) I will be casting my vote for someone else.

Unfortunately, if Kerry is the candidate again, I will be forced to vote third party or do a write-in. I'm at the "tough love" point of my relationship with my Democratic Party.

[Lexingtonian]

108. you should just write in Saddam Hussein, outright

I mean, isn't that what you're doing? Isn't that the only candidate who really meets your test?

The way you're construing things, meaningfully the choice you're making is between your interests and Iraqi interests as represented by {any Democrat} and the same as represented by Saddam Hussein.

Remember that some funny religious book says that God stopped screwing with the World when he considered it good, not when He considered it perfect. There's some kind of message in that.

[matcom]

115. rrrrrriiiii iiiiiiggggg gghhhhh hhhhhtttttttttt ttt

:eyes:

how about Osama? what is his platform on gay marriage?

:eyes:

[Lexingtonian]

118. I'm glad you've decided not to become

a dogmatic single issue voter.... :-)

[Q]

124. What if that 'single issue' is a matter of life and death?

You downplay the importance of the illegal war in Iraq by ridiculing those against it as 'dogmatic single issue' voters. But now we know how and why the Bushies and their Dem enablers in DC are able to get away with attacking countries that pose no threat. There are so many cheerleaders willing to look the other way in order to 'win' elections.

I would be willing to bet that the families of those needlessly dying in Iraq would call this the most important single issue of our time.

[Lexingtonian]

125. Don't distort what I was saying....

People who decide their vote on a single issue, and who do so on the basis of dogma, are dogmatic single issue voters.

People on The Other Side think that abortion is a single issue, and a matter of life and death. Arguably they have a far better case than you ever can, assigning an importance to 1,600 dead people and 15,000 wounded that surpasses that of their millions.

"The importance of the illegal war in Iraq". It may be of surpassing importance to you, but why do you think it should be of surpassing, transcendantal, importance to me? The Kosovo war, which I supported fully, was substantially more illegal and the Kuwait war, which I did only slightly, was utterly legal. I'm not actually trying to repudiate you, I'm just saying that the argument may be made in your mind but it hasn't been made out here where I am, out in the collective. Just calling a war illegal or criminal...well, isn't every war by definition a set of violent crime, some of which gets excused?

Where is your outrage about Darfur, if illegality and needless dying gets to you? Or is the nationalism, of Americans dying, that somehow constitutes the unique outrage?

Okay, I'll even tell you my point. Iraq is just one piece in a larger, problem, set of policies and ab/use of power for bad ends once you answer all the questions about the Iraq situation that need answers. It is Matcom and you not fucking seeing the forest for this one damn big tree that pisses me off.

[Donna Zen]

133. Iraq is a four letter word

...but not a single issue.

We are currently borrowing well over a billion dollars a day with nothing to show for the efforts aside from increased interest on that debt and increasing homage to our bankers: China and Japan.

The war, which must be first looked at in lives lost and lives ruined, additionally is counted in pound-of-flesh treasure. There is no money for:

• health care

• education

• research and development

• infrastructure

• fill in the blank________________

And this war, the greatest tragedy in geopolitical thinking ever made by this country, greater in that regard than Vietnam, is somehow a "single issue." I disagree. We are now the most hated nation on the face of the planet.

This is early days, I for one call for a united effort to support candidates who did not vote for war. First, because it expands the possible campaign issues, but also because, I do not trust anyone who voted for this war. Long before this war started, long before the IWR, the research thread that held the data on another forum, was titled: "The Forever War." I think we got it right. Standing up and finding our starch will not cause the Democrats to lose, they will find the tools to win.

I'm sorry if that effects someone you would like to vote for, but it is time to support people brave enough, honest enough and smart enough, to represent the entire woodland and not just one corporate MIC tree.

[KoKo]

139. Have you read Danner's article on "Downing Street Memo?" Wow it

just blows you away. It's long but worth the read...reallyl

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=125633#125734

[kenny blankenship]

119. Canada, France, ummm well also Spain, now that Asshat is gone (nt)

[Tom Rinaldo]

121. Who is speaking up about Iran, Syria and N. Korea now?

While there is still time to avert another war?

[Chicago Democrat]

132. Um.... A Governor!

Or Kucinich!


I respect you position in the Democratic Primary, but please support whatever schmuch our lameass party nominates and I will too and hope we can win someday but probably not cause its all rigged.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[McCamy Taylor]

140. Governors! They didnt vote for the war!

[Tom Rinaldo]

141. Yes, but some of them would have I bet

Let's not get overly hair splitting. It isn't just a technical matter of who did not literally vote for the IWR, it is also a matter of who has the sound judgment and experience needed to our President. Some Governors may qualify, as might some Senators and/or Congressional Representatives, Boxer, Feingold, Kucinich etc. can be looked at. In my book, Wes Clark passed the test with his clear position against the invasion, and he continues to lead, speaking out against the steady drift toward new wars under Bush. I am supporting Clark, but there are other good Democrats also who I could back.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[Donna Zen]

144. My governor was in the House then

...and voted "no" even though he was at that time campaigning for his new job.

The thread title asks for options: Clark, Feingold and others, some Governors.

After carrying on so much about the war and the each word by every candidate, I'm surprised how quickly many DUers forget. I thought they meant what they said. The Convention was filled with delegates who were very anti-war and kept quiet, the Democratic party needs a sound shaking.

Anyway, I've written quite a bit about this issue up-thread because it is one with which I am personally struggling. Some Governors are indeed on record as either sorta-maybe for the war, clearly against, or not on record. If we are to approach the issue of the war, which will change but be continuing in '08, then we need a candidate that can stand in opposition.

Yes, I support Clark in '08 if he runs, but then I supported him in '04, which would never have happened if he had voted or voiced support for the war.

Besides, bush has no plan or intention of "getting out" and it will take someone of great skill who has earned the trust of the moderate Gulf to end this debacle.

[ulysses]

147. you're behind the times, Matt.

The testosterone is just gearing up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1787705

[cyr330]

149. Makes me tired to think about it. . . .

I don't have much faith in any of them. . . . Kucinich was against the war, so he would be a possiblity. . . .

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

152. Clark, Boxer, Gore

Lieberman, Hillary, Edwards and most of the rest voted to support the Iraq War, and Hillary and Lieberman (in true DLC fashion) are now trying to expand the field of potential US military targets. Shun the DLC at all costs; Edwards I'm also suspicious of. Kerry's been trying to nuance it a bit, and he has the excuse that we was running at full steam in 2004; I'd support a Kerry run in 2008, though maybe not quite with the enthusiasm that I'd prefer. Bayh? Don't know enough, frankly.

Wes Clark, Barbara Boxer, or Al Gore, however, I'd support in an instant, and they could potentially draw mass support as well (especially Clark-- Southerner, decorated general who can say no to a dumb war request, smart, Spanish-speaking, disciplined).

[JNelson6563]

153. Well then you better hope

the Dems do not stupidly let the MSM choose the candidate (again).

Julie