I don't give a shit about the IWR. There. I said it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

All the endless handwringing over which candidates voted for the IWR or which non-Senator candidates would have voted for the IWR had they been in the Senate in 2002 is probably the pure, distilled essence of redundant idiocy. This fucking website will still be having IWR flamewars in the year 2050, I do believe.

I am currently uncommitted to a 2008 presidential candidate, and let me tell you something - I could not give less of a shit how they voted 5 years ago. I really, truly, could not. And ALL the candidate partisans who are making it an issue - ALL of you - are making your candidate that much less appealing to me.

I do NOT give a shit how your goddamn candidate voted in 2002 or how they would've voted blah blah blah. I CARE WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO ON JANUARY 20, 2009. PERIOD. I'm not electing someone who did or didn't do something five fucking years ago. I'm electing someone to lead America NOW.

I want to know what the hell your candidate plans to do in Iraq in 2009, not what they would've/should've done in 2002. I want to know how they plan to fix the mess Bush has left us. THAT is what we need, not more of this fucking wayback machine shit that no longer has any meaning in terms of actually doing anything to solve this country's problems.

The past is, as Yogi Berra said, over. We're in Iraq NOW because BUSH wanted to invade. BUSH. It's HIS war, and it may make you feel superior or clever to blame Dems for it, but I quit caring about the progressive purity one-upmanship games on this site a long time ago. Bottom line: I will vote for the candidate who has the best real-world plan to fix Bush's mistakes. And guess what? So do 90% of Dem primary voters out there in the real world. The only people who care about this inane rehashing of a five year old vote are people who get off on DU flamewars.

So candidate partisans - if you actually want to help sway the undecided voters on this website, start talking and start talking NOW about what they plan to do to end the war and fix this country. Or you can just continue having idiotic IWR flamewars with partisans of your candidate's opponents while the rest of us tune out in disgust. It's your choice.

[loyalsister]

1. Good for you

You're entitled to your opinion. It is valid.
Leave others to theirs, and maybe assume theirs is as well?

[file83]

58. Yeah, sure, let's bury the hatchet....

....with the next dead soldier.

Why should we judge our potential leaders by past judgements & decisions they've made? WHAT GOOD IS THAT!?!

I'm sure there is no relationship between their past decisions and how they will make future decisons! That would be ludicrous!

Why, that would be like saying back in 2000, "Because George W. Bush was a failed business man for every venture he lead, he will FAIL as President!"

...and we all know how George W. Bush proved that idea wrong by becoming one of the best Presidents this country has ever seen!!

[loyalsister]

104. Please do misunderstand me

I am not ready to bury the hatchet in the context that I think you may be implying.
For the primary, It is my belief that the Senators who voted for IWR showed terrible judgement. It nags me to a point that I won't support any of candidates who voted for it in the primary.
That is my own opinion it is a strong opinion and no one has been able to talk me out of it. Why should they try? Why should we have the conversation?

If someone else is over it and supports a primary candidate who voted for it. That is their choice. I don't hold it against them, because they have evaluated the facts on their own. It's their business.

I hope that we could trade courtesies and not try to convince each other.

I was trying to point out that for a person such as myself to disagree with the OP and "get over it" and continue discussion, the opposing truth would have to be accepted as valid.

Because, by then, it seems that both should be aware that it would be a useless effort to forcefully drag one another into the other's truth.....

[ClassWarrior]

150. But most here who cite IWR fail to take into account the rest of history...

George W. Bush** was a failed businessman because he did nothing to change his failure. The IWR dogmatics here don't take into account the intervening personal histories of those they flame for supporting it. There is no redemption or forgiveness or appreciation for personal growth in the flamers' hearts. History stops at IWR. Nothing - NOTHING - can mitigate this single vote in their eyes.

But, at the same time, they don't want a President who is arrogant and stubborn and refuses to admit mistakes.

Sorry. They can't have it both ways.

NGU.

[chaz4jazz]

164. All Those Who Knew For Sure There Were No WMDs Raise Your Hands

(Looking around)

That's what I thought. You, who hold those voting for the IW in contempt are mostly seeing what they've done in clear retrospect. I was against the IW, but, the constant drive of intelligence info stating that Saddam (who we knew was a solid, evil turd) had the capability of hurting us, made me wonder. To hold those who voted for the resolution responsible when they knew not much more than we knew (because the administration was lying) is uncharitable, to say the least.

We know now more than we knew then. Period. Let's move on with what we know.

Chaz

[dave_p]

166. Raising hand

A weapon isn't some stuff in a can. It's something useable. If it's not usable, it's not a weapon, it's just stuff in a can.

We'd seen the deliverability of Saddam's conventional weapons in 1991. The notion that it was much more advanced in 2002 was simply ludicrous after 12 years of the most crippling trade embargo in history. And there was no evidence for any WMDs at all, as inspectors had reported - just a paperwork deficit because the documentation had been destroyed in 1991 along with the materials.

This wasn't intelligence failure, it was deliberate distortion by the US & British governments to fake up a case for invasion where none existed. Lawmakers should be equipped to see through that if they want us to elect them to oversee national policy.

If they want to be elected head of state and government, people are entitled to ask how much better-equipped they are now than they were then. If they're not, the world doesn't get the chance to move on beyond the same stupid mistakes.

[dave_p]

167. Furthermore...

The whole "who knew what?" issue is beside the point. It's the content of the Resolution that's at issue: no safeguards, no expiry, no conditions. Autrhorizing someone like Bush to do whatever he says he considers "appropriate" is as dumb as it gets; it's a betrayal of US voters and Congressional responsibility. There aren't excuses.

[Jai4WKC08]

185. Do you have ANY idea how many nations have WMD?

You think we should attack them all?

[venable]

177. let's judge with the full spectrum of information

which includes why they voted (they had reason to believe it would save lives) and their current actions and words.

[rodeodance]

255. I do not much care at this point either. Dems have a good crop of candidates and I

do not like the constant cutting them down (let that to the repugs)

[BeyondGeography]

2. You can have Yogi Berra, I'll take Faulkner on the past

"The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

Your train of thought takes us down the road to unaccountability and future IWR-style disasters.

Count me out.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. I understand the importance of the past more than you might think

I am just of the belief that the IWR is about a billion times less significant than DU pretends it is. It certainly has zero bearing on how I view potential 2008 candidates. As I said, if candidate partisans can't bother to convince me how their candidate will fix Iraq when they assume the presidency - if all they can do is yammer on about how so-and-so is a progressive hero and so-and-so is a villain because of that stupid vote - then they can count ME out.

I choose to hold BUSH accountable for this war.

[BeyondGeography]

8. It's not about DU, Clinton and Edwards would be killing Obama

if they had voted against IWR, so, obviously, it's an issue for the whole party. As it should be.

As for "fixing Iraq," beware any candidate who says he/she has the answer. That's a matter best left to the Iraqis, don't you think?

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. By "fixing Iraq" I refer to resolving the American involvement in Iraq

I will vote for the candidate who can demonstrate to me that they are serious about ending American military involvement in Iraq.

Also, I don't necessarily agree with your point about Clinton and Edwards vs Obama - I don't see the relative popularity/unpopularity of each candidate at all related to IWR. Obama isn't surging because of his position on the IWR vote five years ago. I live in Illinois so I know plenty of people who support Obama, and none of them has brought up his position on the war from 2002. He's a "fresh face," he has "charisma," etc - that's what I hear from the Obama supporters I know. Nothing about IWR. I really don't think more than maybe 5% of the population even remembers/thinks about IWR.

Among Dems I know, I hear lots of criticism about Hillary Clinton based on her record on the war, but it has far more to do with her recent (as in post 2004) rhetoric than it does her vote, because Edwards by and large escapes the same criticisms. People care about what candidates are saying about Iraq now, but I can honestly say I've never met a Dem in person who has brought up the IWR as an issue in the 2008 presidential race.

[BeyondGeography]

16. We agree, and putting the heat on those who voted for IWR

is one reason virtually all of our candidates are falling all over themselves to say they will end this war and get out of Iraq. IMO, Edwards and Clinton have become more antiwar with each passing month because they've felt the heat on IWR; it's the most effective way to deflect attention from their vote. Don't think for a second if voters had taken a passive attitude about the past that this would be happening.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. You do know, don't you, that Edwards is escaping much of the

IWR flack because he repudiated his IWR vote - and Hillary keeps getting the flack because she refuses to.

Past votes are indicators of future votes - they are, in fact, the ONLY indicators we have. None of us can foresee the future, but we can predict the future based on past performance.

Millions voted for * because of his 'compassionate conservative' talk and his carefully produced middle-of-the-road image, but those of us who looked at his record in Texas were not fooled - we looked to the past to predict the future. We HAVE to base our decisions on that. Failing that, you HAVE to beleive when they say "There are no plans to attack Iraq on my desk".

[WildEyedLiberal]

36. The repudiation of the IWR vote doesn't matter at all to most on DU

Except for the Edwards partisans, for the most part the IWR bile I see on DU is directed at both Edwards and Hillary, so clearly a majority of DU doesn't give a shit that Edwards repudiated his vote. They'd just prefer to rehash the fact that, five years ago, he voted for it, over and over and over.

I think using IWR as a guideline to a candidate's future behavior is extremely misguided. IWR was not just a random vote that exists out of time and context, and to refuse to consider all the factors that contributed to the atmosphere in October of 2002 is to distort the meaning of the vote. I'm not saying that those factors made a yea vote the "right" one, by any means. HOWEVER, to suggest that the way someone voted on IWR is indicitive of anything other than the specific political reality of late 2002 is to distort the meaning of the vote for political purposes - which is the real reason I made my OP. The IWR has turned into a political cudgel to use against one's intraparty opponents, and the debate has lost all sense of historical perspective and reality. It is basically the standard cookie-cutter flame against several candidates, and I'm tired of the mindless political hatchetry.

[karynnj]

77. This was exactly what it was designed to do

and why the vote on it was so difficult. "The IWR has turned into a political cudgel"

[The Magistrate]

282. Indeed, Ma'am

[jcrew2001]

266. Iran and Syria will fix Iraq soon enough

imo they will take over governing the eastern and western parts within 10 years.

[The Magistrate]

269. Do Not Leave Saudi Arabia Out Of The Equation, Sir

Nor, for that matter, Jordan.

It is going to be a busy, busy place....

[David Zephyr]

11. past is prologue.

The reason it matters how they voted on the IWR is that those in the Democratic Party who voted for it were cowards in the face of Bush's high popularity and the opposite must be said about those in the Democratic Party who voted against the IWR, against public opinion, and who opened themselves up to being called unpatriotic and traitors.

It's very much like George Tenet speaking up NOW instead of when it MATTERED to do so.

I will vote for any Democrat in November 2008, but while I respect your O.P. here, I disagree.

It does matter now, because it mattered then. And it wasn't a vote for PTA funding, it was about war.

[Carolina]

30. wonderfully put

the past is also prologue and truth be told, some of our candidates showed poor judgment.

If they were fooled into voting for IWR (which is literally INcredible; how can dumbo Bush fool our smart pols :crazy:), it's because they were too lazy to do their own homework, too callous to care (or even listen to the impassioned words of Robert Byrd about ceding such power to the executive), or too craven -- political cowards more concerned Senate seats than the welfare of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis!

So the IWR and the Patriot Act matter ... big time.

[w4rma]

44. Obama appears to have voted for every single pro-Iraq war bill placed in front of him.

I have a problem with Obama's much more recent pro-Iraq War votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

Note that the thread also shows that Obama's and Hillary's votes mirror one another on Iraq.

Of the 69 Iraq bills that Obama voted on in the Senate, he only voted differently from Hillary once:
"The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm."

[Carolina]

50. Who said I'm for Obama?

You're reading something into my post that isn't there.

I am frankly heartsick that this presidential race is on so soon and is likely to result in a billion dollar winner beholden to corporations including the military-industrial complex.

In the end, I'll vote for the Dem nominee but none of the frontrunners apeal to me at this point

[jillan]

3. W.E.L.-

[AtomicKitten]

4. you are welcome to your opinion

... but it is not cool to be contemptuous and dismissive of people that disagree with you on the IWR. It is a moral deal-breaker for some that affects people on a gut level.

[Clark2008]

126. Thank you.

And I hope you know my criticisms of certain Dems are because I do tend to look at their past - either decision-making process and/or vote history - when making a determination regarding who I think is or isn't a good candidate.

BTW, personal note for you: I started labor contractions Monday, but they stopped them (I was somewhat effaced, but not yet dilated). I'm at nearly 35 weeks and they want me to try not to have her before 36, and preferably 37, weeks. They've pulled me from work and I'm at home, now, waiting on this little baby girl.

[AtomicKitten]

135. hey mom

I am so excited for you!!! Woo-hoo!!!

Please advise when Hannah arrives!

Best regards!!! :)

[closeupready]

5. I think that's sort of irresponsible to say before the primary.

Yes after the primary when dems have selected a candidate, at that point it's sort of water under the bridge and you either put the issue behind you or else don't vote for the dem in the general election. But I think you SHOULD care how a candidate voted on the IWR, either way, and express those thoughts.

[AtomicKitten]

9. I agree this should be a consideration in the primary

... but when the general election rolls around, it's go time.

[closeupready]

15. Right.

n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. It's not irresponsible because I think its importance is overinflated

People voted for - and against - the IWR for different reasons, so to hold it up as a one-size-fits-all indication of a candidate's relative hawkishness is very simplistic. I'm far more concerned with how candidates are proposing to deal with Iraq as president. I'm voting for someone to clean up Bush's mess, not to pat someone on the back for a vote that, in the grand scheme of things, was not very significant. (Because if anyone thinks the outcome in Iraq would be different sans IWR, they are living in a fantasy world.)

I value what position candidates have about Iraq now, and I openly invite candidate partisans to share their candidate's plans and views with me. But if all they can do is scream about how I should vote for X because he didn't (or wouldn't) vote for the IWR and that candidate Y is scum forever because he did, then maybe I should assume their candidate hasn't taken any worthwhile position since 2002 - in which case they automatically disqualify themselves from consideration, since I want a president who can react to the situation at hand.

[closeupready]

14. Okay, that's a little more clear.

Though I don't entirely agree with you. Peace.

[ElizabethDC]

7. I agree with you 100%, WEL

this is about moving forward, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for being willing to stand up and say it!

[TwilightGardener]

12. Yup, I agree--I primarily blame this administration for Iraq.

I don't care who voted/didn't vote for it. If you realize it's wrong and want to end the war, then that's good enough for me.

[Pawel K]

17. The problem I have with your OP is the right wingers use the exact same excuse

Don't look back at how we got in there, what matters is how we move forward. This is the argument I get from every neocon when I bring up the lies that were told before we went in to this war. As Jon Stewert said, are you going to allow the guy who crashed your car into a ditch get that car out?

Sure, in the end I will vote for who ever wins the nomination. But to ignore such a huge mistake these people made because of their fear of being called unpatriotic would be doing a disservice to this country. I finally want someone in the white house that doesn't give 2 shits about politics, I want them to do what is right. I am not trying to speak as a liberal or a democrat, I am trying to speak as an american citizen. And as an american citizen I am sick of the lies and sick of the pandering and sick of the double talk. So in the primaries I will only vote for a candidate that showed the balls to not support that resolution and someone that has been consistent on what they actually believe, I will not support anyone that just goes where the wind happens to be blowing at this perticular moment in time.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Yeah, why look at history?

Let's ONLY consider what they SAY they are going to do and not look at their past actions to decide whether they are worthy of our trust and support.:eyes:

[Catchawave]

19. Agree n/t

[zulchzulu]

20. If you were on the Senate Intelligence Committee and still voted for it, you are an ass

Dick Durbin's recent admission that the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time had plenty of evidence that the intelligence Bush/Cheney were pushing was bullshit. He didn't vote for the IWR. Others on that committee DID knowing that it was pure political theater and now we have what we have.

No free passes for those that were on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time and think they can slide under the blood-soaked flag...

Those names of those who were on the committee who also voted for the IWR are red:
Bob Graham, Florida
Richard C. Shelby, Alabama
Carl Levin, Michigan
Jon Kyl, Arizona
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia
James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Dianne Feinstein, California
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Pat Roberts , Kansas
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Mike DeWine, Ohio
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Edwards, North Carolina (Co-sponsor of IWR)
Richard G. Lugar, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

The key point is that those who may have voted for the IWR were not given the same intelligence reports that the Senate Intelligence Committee had their eyes on.

[jcrew2001]

264. Do you think being a senator from a Red State affected their

vote because they serve the voters and public sentiment by red states was in favor of Bush. It wasn't just intelligence, but the image of Saddam being an enemy of the US for 15 years that motivated the case for war; along with humanitarian excuses. Some Democrats may have wanted to prove that they were not weak anti-war critics of the past, but pro-military supporters seaking to re-shape the middle east into less of an extremist threat. Of course it was driven by Bush BS, Americans are never scared of a fight. Iraq was always a mid-level target, the REAL target has always been Iran - we gave money to Saddam to fight Iran. Now, we have to work with Iran to stabilize Iraq, how ironic.

[Alexander]

21. It shows bad judgment for Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Dodd and Biden.

I want a president with good judgment.

It's that simple.

[Adelante]

23. Me, too

No rewards for tragically poor judgment.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. So which candidate is perfect? Who has almighty good judgment?

Show me a candidate who has never demonstrated poor judgment with a vote, speech, or issue position, and I'll show you a fantasy.

So-and-so voted no on IWR but yes on the Patriot Act - he clearly demonstrates poor judgment.

So-and-so voted no on IWR but yes on John Roberts - poor judgment!

So-and-so voted no on CAFTA but yes on IWR - poor judgment!

I can disqualify every liberal who has ever served a day in Congress with this ridiculous litmus test crap.

[Alexander]

27. This isn't just any issue. This is a bloody war with cooked intel.

Durbin admitted that they all knew it was a crock of shit, but many still voted for it. It's not just "poor" judgment, it's terrible judgment.

That "we were all duped" line is nothing but a lie.

As for now, the Democrat showing the best judgment is Al Gore, but so far he isn't in the race. Feingold was my #2 choice and he definitely won't run (maybe for VP?).

I am keeping my fingers crossed that Gore jumps in, because the current field doesn't excite me very much. His judgment isn't perfect but he knew the IWR was a bunch of shit, and he wasn't even in Congress.

[David Zephyr]

31. Amen.

It does matter how they voted.

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. Durbin was on the Intelligence committee

They didn't ALL have access to that intel - that was Durbin's whole point. But I'm not going to get into that any further because I have no desire to start a flamewar about a particular candidate.

I'm not that enthused about any of the candidates either, but it really has nothing to do with the IWR. None of them have exploited the GOP's massive unpopularlity and offered a daring, FDR-esque vision for the country. They're still, for the most part, playing it safe. Again, candidate partisans can feel free to convince me of their candidate's virtues, but if they drag the fucking IWR into it, I will assume that their candidate has done or said nothing of note in the past 5 years.

MY point is that I could argue that even Feingold exhibted "poor judgment" by voting for an uberconservative to sit on the SCOTUS bench for at least 30 years, but it would be incredibly stupid of me to discount all the things he's done just because I thought he made a very bad vote - a worse vote than IWR, since a) Bush was going to war regardless of the Senate's vote or not and b) the war will end in the next two years. Roberts will be on the bench until he dies. And let's not get into Gore's record in the Senate.

EVERY ONE of our prominent Dems has made poor votes and held positions that most of us disagree with. I categorically reject that idea that IWR alone among bad votes/positions is unforgiveable. BS.

[Alexander]

38. Most who voted for IWR never learned from their "mistake".

And now they're all saber-rattling with Iran.

It's one thing to make a mistake, apologize and learn from it, and it's quite another to say "oops, I'm sorry" and keep repeating the same mistake.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. See, I think the saber-rattling with Iran has a lot more bearing on 2008

THAT is something that could make or break my support for a candidate, because it is something that they're doing right now that could affect the policies they would make as a president.

I agree with this post. Some learn from past mistakes... some don't. My main complaint, and what I was hoping to communicate in my OP, was that the IWR in and of itself doesn't prove much. What does matter is whether anyone learned a lesson from it, and whether a candidate, as president, would get us out of Iraq and make intelligent and sane foreign policy decisions, or whether they are hemming and hawing about Iraq and trying to look tuff by acting belligerent about Iran.

[Alexander]

55. You said "I don't give a shit" about the IWR vote. I do, and those are some reasons.

I even knew the intel was cooked, and Bush was lying his ass off. I'm a 23 year old college kid with no inside intelligence. How could I know, and so many senators not know?

I think they did know it was crap, they just didn't want to look too closely because it was the first election year after Sept. 11th and they didn't want to be perceived as weak on terror.

Which means that they are even less worthy of my vote. I'm mainly for Gore but would consider Clark, and maybe, maybe Kucinich or Obama. I'm not really impressed with many of the others.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. And I stand by that statement.

I really think the IWR is irrelevant at this point in time; I don't think it was ever that relevant. If you don't think Bush would have gone to war regardless, you have a very high opinion of him.

[Alexander]

64. Tell that to the 3,000 dead troops and 600,000 dead Iraqis.

You can bluster all you want about it being irrelevant - but the families of the dead would disagree with you.

Easy to say "I don't care" from behind the safety of your computer screen.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. Oh give me a break and spare me the dishonest rhetoric

Do you think you're going to convince me with that bullshit? I know exactly who to blame for the Iraq war, and so do most Americans. Apparently you don't. I'm sure Bush is just delighted that you're willing to let him off the hook for his own damn war.

Interestingly enough, it's also easy to utter emotionally manipulative catchphrases and thoughtless, pithy cliches from behind a computer screen. Don't be so arrogant as to presume to speak for anyone besides yourself, let alone dead people and their families. :eyes:

It's a good thing America seems to disagree with you that Dems are just as responsible for the war as Repubs - otherwise we'd never have a Congressional majority or a chance to actually do anything to stop the Bush agenda.

[Alexander]

69. When did I ever say Bush wasn't responsible? Talk about dishonest rhetoric.

You like to put words in my mouth, apparently.

Can you debate me on the facts, please? I'm really tired of your straw man horseshit. If you can't debate me honestly, don't debate at all - I am very intolerant of this crap.

You don't care about IWR. Fine. I do. We had enough Democratic senators to stop it, but that didn't happen because many of our senators were too busy playing politics instead of doing the right thing.

I guess people are only responsible for supporting this war if they have an (R) after their name. :eyes:

[karynnj]

79. As soon as Leiberman and Gephardt

made the rose garden announcement that they were ok with the IWR, that was it. The scramble then was only to make the IWR less bad, which they did. (Oddly had they not made that effort, it is likely fewer Democrats would have voted for it,)

[Alexander]

108. That's why I don't like Lieberman and Gephardt.

In the "real world", people do care about such things. WildEyedLiberal could use some "real world" experience, because a majority of this country feels the Iraq War was the wrong thing to do.

[WildEyedLiberal]

120. You aren't interested in "honest debate"

Your emotionally manipulative presumption that you speak for dead soldiers proved that. Speaking of straw men...


Welcome to ignore.

[Alexander]

123. And you aren't interested in holding our senators accountable.

I get it, the (D) after their name means we must never criticize them, ever.

See? I can use dishonest hyperbole just as well as you can.

Feel free to put me on ignore - it just proves that you can't stand anyone with a different, coherent opinion.

[JTFrog]

73. How would

Bush have gone to war without the power the IWR gave him? Just curious.

[JTFrog]

75. I mean I know

his daddy started the tradition of presidents can do whatever the hell they want, but wasn't it illegal to go to war without Congress approval? Consitutional interpretation my ass.

[karynnj]

81. The President has that power to strike if he declares the US is in danger

The troops were already in the Persian gulf before the IWR was even discussed. They would have orchestrated something to look like an immedite threat. (THIS WOULD BE BLATANTLY ILEGAL, but that never stopped Bush)

Bush was also claiming that the vague authority to fight terrorism given in fall 2001 could be used.

[Alexander]

117. Yeah, but only for 90 days.

Hence, had the IWR not passed, even if Junior invaded it would've been over in 2003.

Assuming the pro-IWR Democrats wouldn't find another way to give away their constitutional rights to the president.

[The Magistrate]

141. With Humorous Ease, Ms. Frog

And the votes of the next Congress, which would have been even more heavily weighted to Republicans than it was in the event. The campaign run against Democrats 'tying the President's hands in the War on Terror' would have been a savage thing, and massively effective. The new Congress would have made passing the enabling resolution its first order of business, and the actual preparation, of course, would not have missed a beat in the interim. There would not have been so much as a day's delay in the striking date.

[Alexander]

170. Nothing but baseless speculation on your part.

I shouldn't be surprised that the DLC wing likes to ignore the fact that Wellstone's numbers went up after he voted against the IWR.

Revisionist history at its best.

[The Magistrate]

190. How Is This Calling Informed Disagreement 'Baseless Speculation' Thing Working Out For You, Sir?

It seems a trifle rote by now....

"Remember, Gentlemen: always above, seldom on the same level, never underneath."

[Alexander]

198. How is posting inaccurate information working out for you?

Because that's all you've done so far, repeatedly throughout this thread.

[The Magistrate]

200. Since My Observations Are Accurate, Sir, It Is Not Possible For Me To Answer That

But the smell of the pot roast drifting out of the kichen is scrumptious....

[Alexander]

202. You haven't presented us with a single accurate fact so far.

Just borrowed quotes, meaningless words and false politeness.

Seems to be your style.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. IMO, it's not about whether they had the intelligence, it's about what those who had it, did with it

It's entirely possible that some Senators were duped because they DID see the intelligence and that persuaded that they needed to go to war.

On the other hand, there were those like Bob Graham, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin who looked at the intelligence and said "Wait a second, this doesn't all add up, I want a better explanation before I vote for this resolution." Of course, they ran out of time before the Bush Administration had to give a better explanation. The fact that the GOP used the IWR to win back the Senate was the most serious indicator of just how not serious Bush was about bipartisanship. Any responsible president would've told congress to hold the vote off until after the election and then called Congress into special session over the winter when they could deal with it without the concern of a looming election.

[karynnj]

78. Read some of the Senate IWR speeches

You say you knew the intelligence was cooked. In reality, you suspected the intelligence was cooked. Also, it was obvious the intelligence (for whatever reason) was wrong by March 2003. That was when Bush still chose to go to war in violation to all the public statements he made in fall 2002.

Even then, the media and some of the most powerful Democrats stayed silent which tacitly backed the war. That is the time of the really huge rallies here and across the world.

In their speeches, many Sentors were not convinced that there <1>were definately WMD. They couldn't rule out that there could be WMD, especially as the inspectors had been out for 4 years. That was a much higher bar and there were people from both the Bush and Clinton administrations who were worried about that.

The other factor was that sanctions were going to be lifted. The sanctions had been in place causing harm for 12 years and it's hard to say what they were accomplishing.

Had all the Democrats held together, they might have been able to stand behind Bush on going to the UN and getting the inspectors in in a bill that did not say that if needed they authorized war. As soon as Leiberman publicly caved, they had NO negotiating power.

[Alexander]

118. The PNAC manifesto puts a giant hole in your theory.

The PNAC website, which was very much up and running in 2002, clearly stated the intention to invade Iraq and the need for "a second Pearl Harbor" to do so. Obviously, based on PNAC's own admission, the war in Iraq was planned long before 9/11.

Anyone who supported this invasion promptly shut their mouths when I printed off the PNAC doctrine and showed it to them.

How come I could find this with such ease, and yet 25 of our senators couldn't?

Answer: They (the pro-IWR Democrats) knew, or suspected, the premise was false - but they voted for it anyway. They didn't want to discuss the war for very long because they were hoping to focus on domestic issues to win the 2002 election.

They played politics with people's lives, and now we are all paying the price for it.

I do care about IWR, and I take exception with the OP's statement that people shouldn't.

[The Magistrate]

142. Absolutely And Utterly Meaningless, Mr. Alexander

Had there been some suspension of the ordinary rules of arithmetic that allowed defeat of the mesasure after the defection of Lieberman, the next Congress would simply have passed some enabling resolution as its first order of business. After the "Democrats don't want us to protect you from Terror!" campaign that would have been waged even more virulently than it was, that Congress would have been even more heavily weighted to the Republicans. The actual logistics of preparation would have continued without missing a beat. The votes were of no signifigance in regard to the actual preparation for and launching of the war. They are of even less signifigance today.

[Alexander]

152. It was wrong to vote for IWR. You can't defend it, so don't bother trying.

"Had there been some suspension of the ordinary rules of arithmetic that allowed defeat of the mesasure after the defection of Lieberman, the next Congress would simply have passed some enabling resolution as its first order of business."

Ever heard of a filibuster? I guess not.

"After the "Democrats don't want us to protect you from Terror!" campaign that would have been waged even more virulently than it was, that Congress would have been even more heavily weighted to the Republicans."

Pure speculation, and bad speculation at that. Wellstone voted against IWR and his poll numbers went up. I call bullshit.

"The actual logistics of preparation would have continued without missing a beat."

So? The Democrats didn't need to enable this shit.

"The votes were of no signifigance in regard to the actual preparation for and launching of the war."

Congress has the power to declare war, and like Senator Byrd said, you don't give that power away.

"They are of even less signifigance today."

Only in your opinion, which thankfully doesn't count for much.

BTW - having trouble with the word "significance"? I noticed in all your flowery rhetoric and fake politeness that you didn't bother to check your spelling.

[The Magistrate]

161. A Concentration On Trifles, Sir, Wastes Your Own Time As Much As Your Reader's

The resolution was an elegant political trap, for which the enemy's strategists do deserve a complimentary text-book entry. The line you are pursuing here is merely one of the multiple benefits they intended achieving by its employment. None of what you present here is even serious engagement with my arguement, let alone a rebuttal of it: "I call bullshit" is the most abject confession of forensic impotence imagineable.

"I have no respect for any man who can spell a word just one way."

[Alexander]

171. You ignore the facts I post and provide none of your own.

I suppose I'm going to have to bring up Paul Wellstone again, because you sure do like to ignore the fact that his poll numbers went up after he voted "NO" on the IWR.

Your argument is nothing but flowery jargon. You convey no facts, no evidence, and no historical data. Just pure speculation and choice comments for those who disagree with you.

Of course I'm going to call bullshit - a professor reading a paper full of such tripe would undoubtedly laugh you out of the classroom. Why you expect intelligent DUers to be convinced by formal prose and speculation is beyond me.

BTW - I never asked you to join this conversation. If I'm wasting your time, feel free to go away; you don't really add much to this discussion anyway, since you provide so little in the way of factual information.

[The Magistrate]

186. You Never Asked Me To Join in This Conversation, Sir?

You placed comments in a public forum, and this is a standing invitation for anyone to engage them on whatever ground and in whatever manner they choose. In this instance, the energy with which you press a misguided and bankrupt line of argument drew my attention, and seemed worth some response. That your replies when engaged have grown steadily more shrill and personal strikes me as the measure of your comments' worth. They certainly do not indicate any depth of understanding of the political climate in the autumn of 2002, nor of the actual process by which the country was being brought to war with Iraq by the administration. The one example you repeatedly cite is meaningless. You cannot demonstrate that every person who voted against the resolution was more popular afterwards, anymore than you can demonstrate that that individual's increased popularity owed to voting against the resolution.

[Alexander]

191. YOU accused ME of wasting your time, when I wasn't even talking to you.

So, the only one you can blame for wasting your time is yourself.

This discussion is a big time-waster? Then go away! I certainly didn't demand that you debate me on this issue. Nor did I demand that you, Magistrate, read my posts. You certainly aren't important enough for me to consider how best your time is being spent every time I post something on DU.

Speculation is speculation. You post your opinion and speculation as if it were fact.

In reality, it's just guesswork, and the few facts we do have are hardly a resounding endorsement of your argument.

And I have cited more examples than simply Wellstone - including Boxer and Feingold, both of whom, according to the same "conventional wisdom" you're using, were going to lose re-election in 2004. Instead both won easily, and Feingold even outperformed Kerry.

You can't demonstrate that your speculation is any more valid than mine. So you might as well quit wasting your own time, and leave this thread, if wasting time really bothers you that much.

:eyes:

[The Magistrate]

193. As The Man Said, Sir

"Over-turning turtles was my speciality...."

The major element of your concetration on trifles is the energy you expend on engaging superficial elements of other's comments, and continually driving to make personalities the focus of the exchange. No one cares, and why you seem to puzzles me, and probably diminishes for most who read this whatever weight your comments might otherwise carry.

The other element of it is the flogging of this long dead horse of a resolution, a creature of a different political climate, that very few people see, or will see, as having much relevance today. The largest voting bloc in the country just now comprises people who towards the end of '02 and beginning of '03 were very much in favor of invading Iraq, and now are of the view that invading and occupying Iraq was a very poor idea. They are not inclined to hold having made the same mistake they did against anyone....

[Alexander]

196. You have not used a single correct fact in this entire thread so far.

"The largest voting bloc in the country just now comprises people who towards the end of '02 and beginning of '03 were very much in favor of invading Iraq, and now are of the view that invading and occupying Iraq was a very poor idea. They are not inclined to hold having made the same mistake they did against anyone...."

No. Americans backed inspections first. Only when Bush finally attacked did they "rally 'round the flag" and support the war.

But the entire time Iraq was being discussed, Americans wanted the inspectors to be allowed to finish their job.

You ignore these facts, post none of your own (unless they are false), and use formal prose and flowery words to try to hide the fact that you are totally incorrect on this issue.

And then you have to nerve to accuse me of "wasting your time" and making the discussion about "personalities". :eyes:

I can't say I'm too concerned with how your time is being spent, particularly since you are the one posting inaccurate and misleading information and therefore wasting everybody's time.

[The Magistrate]

199. No One Gave A Rap About Inspections, Sir

That is a civics text answer, like saying you would be happy to pay higher taxes for better schools: people give it because they think they should, and are a little embarrassed by their real feelings on the question....

"A real American only needs one finger."

[Alexander]

203. You didn't read the polls much, did you?

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=332

Here's just one poll refuting the nonsense you keep repeating. I'll provide more if asked.

"Support for Attack on Iraq Varies Greatly – Depending on the Circumstances"

"* When asked – before being given the four different scenarios described above – whether or not the U.S. should "take military action to change the government in Iraq," a clear but not overwhelming 49% to 27% plurality thinks the U.S. should. However, other questions show that this support is extremely soft and increases or decreases depending on the context.
* When those in favor of military action to change the government in Iraq (49%) were asked if they would favor or oppose it, given four different scenarios, the results vary dramatically.

o Almost all of them (91% or 45% of all adults) favor a U.S.-led attack if there is "a vote of the United Nations Security Council to authorize" it.
o Most (77% or 38% of all adults) favor an attack if "Saddam Hussein does not allow weapons inspectors to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction."
o This falls again to only 46% of those initially favoring a U.S.-led attack (or 23% of all adults) if "there is no agreement in the United Nations Security Council and no vote to authorize a military attack on Iraq."
o And it drops again to 38% (i.e. only 19% of all adults) if "Saddam Hussein allows weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and they are free to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction."

I understand, though. It's easier for you to pretend to be able to read people's minds than it is to come up with any accurate information. :eyes:

[dave_p]

175. Elegant my ass

A clued-up ten-year-old would have spotted it.

Of course there was a trap. We're still in it. But that didn't mean Democrats had to walk into it.

There will always be traps - that's politics. We need people who don't fall for them.

[The Magistrate]

187. Faced Many Traps In Your Life, Sir?

All strategy, certainly, is in reach of an intelligent child. At what age did you master the art of standing behind someone's left, and reaching across to tap their right shoulder? Did you ever rise to the heights of looking to your left when your right shoulder was tapped from behind? What you do not seem to grasp, though, is that it was the calling for the vote itself, at that particular time, that constituted the trap, and there was no question of 'walking into it': it was sprung, and could not be avoided. Voting for the resolution ws no more 'walking into it' than was voting against the resolution.

"Subtlety is simple."

[Alexander]

192. Purely and utterly false.

"Voting for the resolution ws no more 'walking into it' than was voting against the resolution."

The fact that Bush accused Daschle, who was pro-IWR, of being "not interested in national security" because he didn't move fast enough in passing it should have been a big hint that the smear machine wasn't going to stop just because a Democrat voted "yes" on the IWR.

So yes, voting for it was definitely "walking into it". People like Daschle and Cleland were still attacked as being "soft on terror", only this way the liberals - and indeed, the 2/3rds of the country who wanted inspections completed first - were also given a reason to be angry.

There is no need to be condescending towards others because of your own faulty analysis.

[The Magistrate]

195. The Question, Sir, Is The Effect Of the Smear

Not whether it would be employed. The effect of the smear would have been far greater had Democrats acted as would have had them do, because it would have been far easier for the enemy's propagandists to provide substance to their line. If you are honestly of the impression that, for instance, the defeat of Sen. Cleland owed to people being angry that he voted for the resolution, it is hard to know what to say....

"If a man will continue to insist that two and two do not make four, I know of nothing in the power of arguement that can stop up his mouth."

[Alexander]

201. The smear obviously didn't work against the anti-IWR Democrats.

"The effect of the smear would have been far greater had Democrats acted as would have had them do, because it would have been far easier for the enemy's propagandists to provide substance to their line."

Since we have the benefit of hindsight now, it's much easier for us to know how wrong you are. Not a single anti-IWR Senator has lost re-election, whereas several who voted for IWR did lose re-election.

"If you are honestly of the impression that, for instance, the defeat of Sen. Cleland owed to people being angry that he voted for the resolution, it is hard to know what to say...."

Actually, I'm more convinced DREs had something to do with Cleland's loss, given the large exit poll discrepancies. But that's neither here nor there.

There was also the Chambliss ad linking Cleland to Osama bin Laden. The "effect" of the smear was equally devastating, if not more so, to the Senators who supported the IWR.

[dionysus]

157. Abslutely and Utterly Condescending, Sir, and foolhardy

You seem to think it was a "good political move" to vote for a resolution we knew was fronted by a pack of lies, as to "look tough on terra" at the expense of 3,300 and 600,000 plus HUMAN BEINGS' LIVES!!!!!!!!... for an election WE LOST. Are you insane?

I'm glad it's such a game for you. I am guessing you don't know anyone who had to go over there and get fucked up for some politician's pandering to people like you.

You may view politics as a game, but A LOT of people die from it. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[The Magistrate]

163. You Seem To Be Missing the Point Entirely, Sir

There was no good move available in the situation for the Democrats in the Congress, and they knew it as well as did the enemy who contrived the trap for them. Life will, at times, confront people with such a circumstance, and the results are never pleasant. Individuals in such a fix do what they think will harm them least, and it is not my inclination to expect much more than that from human beings. After all, were hero-ism and saint-hood not exceptional things, they would not attract awe and veneration, both of which are merely the awareness of the person feeling them that he or she would probably not have acted like that themselves.

Your descent into personalities deserves some small thanks for the touch of laughter it provided me, but nothing more....

[Alexander]

172. The point is you are giving pro-IWR Democrats a pass, nothing more.

Anyone familiar with the procedural rules of the United States Senate knew that there were several options available - filibustering, voting "present", and adding amendments to the resolution, among other things.

Bringing up the PNAC doctrine and questioning the accuracy of Powell's presentation would have been nice as well.

Had the Democratic leadership not been so cowardly at the time, we might have seen some of these options used. Instead, Daschle and Gephardt caved. But even though the leaders were spineless, many Democrats were not - most in the House voted against the IWR, as did nearly half in the Senate. It's not "hero-ism", "saint-hood" or "exceptional" when over 100 people do it.

The pro-IWR Democrats made a calculated political move, but they knew the possible consequences when they made this move. Ironically, it seems doing the right thing paid off here - Wellstone's numbers went up, Feingold and Boxer easily won re-election despite the conventional wisdom, and the pro-IWR Dems like Kerry, Clinton and Edwards have all had their votes come back to haunt them.

[The Magistrate]

189. Who Ever Doubted Sens. Feingold And Boxer Would Win Re-Election, Sir?

No one of consequence, who was not simply trying to stir up betting interest among the un-aware and ill-informed. Both are very popular figures in their states.

Those who voted against the resolution also made a calculated political choice, and on no different ground than those who voted for it: they felt that vote would be popular with their particular electorates. Some may imagine people act mostly on moral principle, but they do not, and some may even imagine the world would be a better place if people did so, though it seems to me the prospects that would make the world a better place in which to live are extremely dubious, having encountered people whose moral convictions differ greatly from mine, and knowing no way to resolve disputes grounded in such convictions short of walking away or striking a blow.

The Democratic Congessional leadership, knowing the likely lines of attack the enemy would employ in future, and probably understanding the truth that the thing would be done regardless of the way the vote went at that moment, made a professional decision that the least damaging option to the Party's future prospects was not to pitch an organized fight against it. However it may appear to the eagle eye of hindsight, it was a reasonable decison to take at the time it was made. That suffices for me.

[Alexander]

194. Their own staffers, for starters.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-25.htm

"Fast forward to the fall of 2002 and the run-up to Bush's war on Iraq. Democratic senators, including Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Edwards and John Kerry all voted to give President Bush the authority to attack Saddam Hussein. Russ Feingold voted against the war. I spoke at the time with a Feingold staff member who worried that these two votes would doom Feingold in his 2004 race for re-election. "We'll be bashed viciously as weak on terror and anti-war, they'll trash us mercilessly and it will cost Russ his race.""

"Those who voted against the resolution also made a calculated political choice, and on no different ground than those who voted for it: they felt that vote would be popular with their particular electorates."

I didn't know you were a mind-reader. I suppose the possibility of elected officials opposing IWR because they felt it was wrong never occurred to you? Keep in mind Wellstone remarked "I just cost myself the election" after he voted for it, so there's a good example of you being wrong again.

"However it may appear to the eagle eye of hindsight, it was a reasonable decison to take at the time it was made."

No, it wasn't, particularly considering the American people agreed with us and by a solid majority wanted inspections to be completed before any military action was pursued.

"That suffices for me."

I'm glad you don't care about holding our senators accountable for horrible votes, but many of us do care and will continue to do so, despite your condescending attitude and empty rhetoric.

[The Magistrate]

197. The People Of the Country Did Not Agree With Us, Sir

And you may quote all the incidental polls you wish without denting the fact that the populace was moving to the rythms of vengeance and unsated blood-lust, and not too particular where the blows would fall, providing they were spectacular and lethal. The left continually under-rates the popularity of war, particularly impending war, as regularly as the military over-rates the efficacy of air strikes.

An un-named staffer with poor nerves falls far short of establishing the point you are attempting to carry, in the hopes of presenting this a morality play, rather than a pioece of political business no more or less squalid than the usual run of that trade.

It would no more occur to me, Sir, to accuse a politician of moral principles than to accuse a swindler of honesty: it would be extremely discourteous, to the point of constituting fighting words....

"Societies cannot do with much sincerity: it is like putting an iron girder into a house of cards."

[Alexander]

204. Wrong. Only 38% wanted war with the inspectors in there. Read #203.

"And you may quote all the incidental polls you wish without denting the fact that the populace was moving to the rythms of vengeance and unsated blood-lust, and not too particular where the blows would fall, providing they were spectacular and lethal."

So it's okay for our elected officials to sign on to bad legislation, just to satisfy the public's "blood-lust"? I can't believe what I'm reading.

I think we might be nearing the end of this discussion - your last post revealed your true colors. Apparently facts and morality don't matter - when the public wants blood (which they didn't), the Congress had better give it to them.

[incapsulated]

218. Apologists don't need facts

They argue semantics.

Or in this case, change history to suit their argument.

Sadly, the Magistrate believes only in the worst in people.

People were not screaming for blood.

And not all politicians are inhuman or without integrity.

And people do remember.

[The Magistrate]

221. You Bring Tears To My Eyes, Ma'am, Indeed You Do

"It is strange that the doctrine of Original Sin finds so little favor in the modern age, as it is perhaps the one item of Christian dogma susceptible of empirical proof."

[Alexander]

223. Borrowed quotes and formal prose are no match for having the facts on your side.

You shower us with antiquated quotes and formal writing, possibly attempting to mask your terribly poor debate skills.

At the same time you misrepresent known facts, present your own opinions and speculation as though they were facts and repeatedly prove yourself to be incapable of addressing anything I've cited. For all your sound and fury, you can't do better than this?

Since this whole thread is about our opinion on the war and why we feel this way, I feel it's appropriate to include another quote.

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts."

-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[The Magistrate]

225. Once A Man Has Proved No Match For The Enticements Of A Pot-Roast, Sir

There is no going back to it: the thing is done. Nor is there any need to restate what has been said adequately days ago....

"Say something once, why say it again?"

[Alexander]

227. That's where we differ. I don't reward failure.

I expect my elected officials to listen to their constituents and do what they feel is right, polls and media be damned.

Maybe you don't, and I guess we have to agree to disagree on that point.

[The Magistrate]

230. Do You Really Think So, Sir?

That depends on several factors you have probably left quite unexamined.

One is the question of whether your views reflect that of the bulk of a legislator's constituents: it is quite possible, indeed, it is likely, that a legislator can cast a great many votes that enrage and affront you without one of them going counter to what a sizeable majority of the district or state wants to see done.

Another is the question of whether the legislator's views of what is right coincide in any great degree with your's, as it is quite possible, again, indeed, even likely, they will not, and my guess would be that your reaction to a legislator casting votes quite in accordance with what he or she feels is right, but different from what you feel is right, would be one of rage and affront, rather than of commendation for their fidelity to principle and conscience.


Indeed, the sentence "I expect my elected officials to listen to their constituents and do what they feel is right, polls and media be damned," contains less clarity and more contradictions than any string of words ought fairly to be made to bear. If the views of the constituents, and what the elected official feels is right, differ, where is the guide? What is the difference between doing what the constituents want, and being guided by polls? It has a great ring, but means in fact nothing at all.

"And this be Law that I'll maintain until my dying day, Sir, that whatsoever King may reign, still I'll be the Vicar of Breigh, Sir."

[Alexander]

249. Round and round you go, repeating the same debunked things...

"That depends on several factors you have probably left quite unexamined."

Oh no, good sir. You simply have not been reading all of my responses to you on this thread, many of which contain information and evidence which refutes much of what you are claiming. It is not I who needs to more closely examine these things, it is you.

I will give you the benefit and assume you didn't read everything I've posted, like the quotes from Feingold's staffers or the polls showing the public did not support the war as vigorously as you claim.

However, your repeated insistence on these old and tired arguments - one might say talking points - leaves me mystified.

"One is the question of whether your views reflect that of the bulk of a legislator's constituents: it is quite possible, indeed, it is likely, that a legislator can cast a great many votes that enrage and affront you without one of them going counter to what a sizeable majority of the district or state wants to see done."

Sizeable majority? Read post #203.

Only 38% of the public wanted war with Iraq if the inspectors were in there (which turned out to be what happened).

I repeat. Thirty-eight percent.

Since when is 38% a "sizeable majority"? I thought a "majority" was 50% + 1? So how could 38% be a majority, never mind a sizeable majority, of people who supported war with Iraq?

You are making these claims about the public, and what they wanted. The burden of proof is on you - and I can cite poll after poll which shows the "support" for war in Iraq was really quite soft and really depended on what questions you asked the public.

In fact, it seems as if the big media was "push polling" the war, asking leading questions so as to present higher numbers of public support. The more detailed polls showed that if the public wanted anything, they wanted inspections first.

"Another is the question of whether the legislator's views of what is right coincide in any great degree with your's, as it is quite possible, again, indeed, even likely, they will not, and my guess would be that your reaction to a legislator casting votes quite in accordance with what he or she feels is right, but different from what you feel is right, would be one of rage and affront, rather than of commendation for their fidelity to principle and conscience."

While I can appreciate that my personal moral compass might be different from another's, this is an issue of war and constitutional powers - two extremely serious issues that I would expect any legislator to approach with extreme caution. Any war being packaged as a "preventative" war should be viewed as highly suspect, in my opinion - it's what nearly every empire says before they try to conquer other people.

This was a test to see who would buy into the Orwellian nonsense being peddled at the time and who didn't. The temptation must have been strong, I'm sure, because the media promoted the idea of war 24/7, and sold people the idea that they wanted war when they probably didn't. However for me, it's not so much a matter of punishing those who voted for it - keep in mind I voted Dean, then Kerry in 2004 - as it is rewarding those who voted no or spoke out against the war before it was popular to do so. In my opinion, that took some stones. It was a courageous thing to do and I remember when us anti-war lefties were being called "crazy", "weak on terror", "friends with Saddam", "treasonous", "siding with the terrorists" en masse.

Certain Democrats had the courage to do this. Kucinich voted no, Gore spoke out against the war, as did Obama, and Clark criticized the entire strategy of it. It doesn't mean I'll necessarily vote for any of these candidates, especially since the two of them who are my favorites are not running yet, but it does intrigue me that we can have a Democratic candidate not tainted by the "flip-flop" label so devastatingly effective against Kerry that even many DUers continue to repeat it.

It was a massive propaganda campaign back then, quite possibly the largest ever, even larger than Hearst and the Spanish-American War, and I applaud those who were correctly skeptical more than I attack those who made the mistake of buying into it.

"Indeed, the sentence "I expect my elected officials to listen to their constituents and do what they feel is right, polls and media be damned," contains less clarity and more contradictions than any string of words ought fairly to be made to bear. If the views of the constituents, and what the elected official feels is right, differ, where is the guide? What is the difference between doing what the constituents want, and being guided by polls? It has a great ring, but means in fact nothing at all."

There is no contradiction. Whether or not the national polls say the public supports war, I expect elected officials to attend town hall meetings, respond to letters, e-mails and phone calls, pay at least little bit of attention to massive one-sided demonstrations, and look for the nuances that the media doesn't mention. There is more to one's constituents than polls and what the media says.

Nuances include the question "Do you support war before the UN inspectors are allowed to do their job?". Apparently, public officials would've found their constituents would have shouted a resounding NO to them in response by a 62%-38% margin, although I could've told you that 5 years ago. :eyes:

Again, I understand the temptation to buy the spin and media/MIC/Bush sale of the war was strong, what with all the pro-war cheerleading.

Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear in that I believe the big media - that is, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and MSNBC - pushed the war on us by asking slanted questions to get pro-war results.

My problem is, you cited zero polls saying the public supported the war, and yet repeatedly claim this to be the case, ignoring the issue of inspections which had not yet been completed (and never were). I have already posted one such poll contradicting your repeated claim in #203 and will post more if prompted. If you're just going to repeat the same thing in the face of evidence, then there really isn't much I can say.

I remember even back then the poll numbers in support of this war were soft. The public wanted inspections before any war. Now that you have the facts, any further attempts by you to claim the opposite are attempts to revise history, and poor ones at that.

"And this be Law that I'll maintain until my dying day, Sir, that whatsoever King may reign, still I'll be the Vicar of Breigh, Sir."

Yet another meaningless borrowed quote. Do you think this is clever?

And what is the point of your continued presence here?

It seems to me like you're making any or all of three main points.

1. You agree with WildEyedLiberal here and don't care about the IWR vote.

2. Democrats voting in the primaries won't care.

3. And we shouldn't either.

If it's #1, we can agree to disagree. I may be troubled by your priorities and values, but we need not take it further; I will not change your mind and you will not change mine.

If it's #2, I want to know how you became clairvoyant all of a sudden. Predicting the electorate is about as successful as predicting the weather, and I'd like to know if you showed this clairvoyance in predicting in 2002 that the public would turn against the war in Iraq.

If it's #3, I resent the notion that you feel the need to tell other Democrats what to care about.

If it's none of these, then I still don't know what point you are making, and would like to hear it.

[The Magistrate]

256. You Have De-Bunked Nothing, Mr. Alexander

You have simply stated an opinion of your own, and waved about one of several hypotheticals in a poll as though that were Holy Writ, and the summa of knowledge and understanding of the mood of the people of the country a year and on after the attacks of September 11, and of the tremendous rage and desire for vengeance they ignited. How you square this with the disdain for guidance by polls you express above at some length remains unclear. This is not your only opinion, of course: among your other superb understandings of our nation's political life, and the way events in the world occur and play out, is the belief, expressed recently nearby, that the elder Bush is a consumate political assassin, having contrived the murder of President Kennedy, and the attempted murder of Reagan, and that not only has he done these things, but he has managed to get away scot-free with them while leaving scattered about in reach of anyone with access to a computer terminal absolutely damning evidence of his actions. Which of us those who read this exchange will consider to have the soundest view of matters of state is a question that does not trouble me in slightest.

"We don't quite know what we want, but we're ready to bite somebody to git it."

[Alexander]

257. At this point, you're just trying to re-write history.

"You have simply stated an opinion of your own, and waved about one of several hypotheticals in a poll as though that were Holy Writ, and the summa of knowledge and understanding of the mood of the people of the country a year and on after the attacks of September 11, and of the tremendous rage and desire for vengeance they ignited."

You're the one claiming "the people wanted blood". You're the one claiming they supported war in Iraq under any circumstances. I present facts showing the opposite. What do you have in response? Nothing, just more flowery rhetoric.

I showed a poll, and am prepared to show many more, proving that this is not a fact like you claim it is. You have provided zero data, statistics, quotes, polls or anything to back up your tired claim.

You mentioned "one of several hypotheticals" - yet in reality, the inspectors had not finished their job, and were never allowed to. It's not "hypothetical" if it actually happened.

When you're debating me on the facts, it helps to have some of your own data ready to present. Otherwise you might as well say "it's my opinion that people wanted war" and leave it at that, because it's clear the factual basis of that statement is a matter of dispute.

At this point I will ask for some data from you. The people supported war, no matter what? Prove it. Otherwise I will take your words with the several canisters of salt they deserve.

"How you square this with the disdain for guidance by polls you express above at some length remains unclear."

Polls aren't everything, but the better ones ask better questions, like "Do you support war if the inspectors are in there?" A pity you lack the ability to understand the subtle nuances of polling. Often times the question on everyone's mind is not the question being asked.


"This is not your only opinion, of course: among your other superb understandings of our nation's political life, and the way events in the world occur and play out, is the belief, expressed recently nearby, that the elder Bush is a consumate political assassin, having contrived the murder of President Kennedy, and the attempted murder of Reagan, and that not only has he done these things, but he has managed to get away scot-free with them while leaving scattered about in reach of anyone with access to a computer terminal absolutely damning evidence of his actions. Which of us those who read this exchange will consider to have the soundest view of matters of state is a question that does not trouble me in slightest."

1. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

2. You are a total hypocrite. You have berated me on occasion for not sticking to the topic at hand. Why can't you practice what you preach? We are talking about the IWR vote, nothing more.

3. I would love to debate the facts of the Kennedy and Reagan shootings with you any time - it's clear I know far more about the subjects than you ever could - but a thread about the IWR vote is not the appropriate place. I will not entertain or continue discussion of these topics here - if you wish to discuss them, it's as easy as PMing me or starting a new thread. Bring it up again here, and this conversation is over.

4. You put words in my mouth again.

5. It's obvious you can't debate the IWR with me on a factual basis, so you resort to bringing up other topics in an attempt to cut your losses. It's not working.

You're all sound and fury, signifying nothing. You use straw men, present opinions as fact, divert from the topic and present nothing to back up what you claim are the facts.

Maybe next time you should try picking on someone who isn't far better at debating than you are. :eyes:

[The Magistrate]

258. If You Say So, Sir

A person's views are a unity, and when a person makes a claim to superior qualities of judgement and understanding, it is quite proper to adduce other items that person has arrived at belief in through the exercise of those self-proclaimed qualities. That belief of your's has everything to do with the real grounds on which you are attempting to dispute with me. You feel your understanding of political life is greatly superior to mine: you believe one President of the United States has had one other President of the United States assassinated, and directed an attempt on the life of another President of the United States, and further, you believe that conclusive proof of this can be accessed from any computer terminal anywhere in the world. It will probably not surprise you to be told that a great many people consider holding the latter view decisive evidence of a very poor degree of understanding of political life in this country, and that if a person holds it, great doubt is cast on the acuity of any other judgements such a person proclaims as superior to anyone else's.

[Alexander]

260. So now you've completely dropped the IWR topic.

"A person's views are a unity, and when a person makes a claim to superior qualities of judgement and understanding, it is quite proper to adduce other items that person has arrived at belief in through the exercise of those self-proclaimed qualities. That belief of your's has everything to do with the real grounds on which you are attempting to dispute with me."

I get it. It's okay for you to veer off-topic, but if I do it, my posts get deleted. :eyes:

When one resorts to tactics such as these, others can't help but notice the hypocrisy.

"You feel your understanding of political life is greatly superior to mine: you believe one President of the United States has had one other President of the United States assassinated, and directed an attempt on the life of another President of the United States, and further, you believe that conclusive proof of this can be accessed from any computer terminal anywhere in the world."

Wrong. I have never, ever said what you claimed I said. You are referencing a particular post of mine, and yet you won't even quote it or cite it. That says a lot - it says that you don't want other people to really know what I said; you want to presume to tell them what I said.

I never claimed Bush "had" Kennedy assassinated, or even "directed" the Reagan assassination attempt. I never claimed it was provable or that having Internet access would prove this to be the case. Once again, for what must be the thousandth time, you have put words in my mouth.

We're past the point where I can expect you to debate honestly now. You've moved into twisting my words and falsifying my beliefs to score cheap "points" because you know continuing to argue the same tired claims isn't working.

If you really want to know what I think regarding the Kennedy and Reagan shootings, all you need do is ask me. But I see you can't even be bothered to quote the post of mine that you are talking about, so I do not expect any sort of honest debate from you any more.

As I said in the last post, if you can't stay on topic, this conversation is over.

Not only can't you stay on topic, you also can't have an honest debate. In order to be perceived as "winning" you look for posts of mine in other threads, twist my words and hope nobody can tell the difference.

I would say "it's been nice knowing you", but I'm more honest than you are. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

267. 'For The Thousandth Time', Mr. Alexander?

That would seem to be something of an exaggeration, that ill-becomes claims of superior judgement and undertanding: those qualities are reflected in precise expression, and imprecise expression reflects something else. It is apparent you really do not grasp what the ground of contention here is, and what weapons are being employed in it.

"Gallant fellows, these soldiers, always they head for the thickest point in the fence."

[Alexander]

271. Oh please. You've twisted my words countless times.

"That would seem to be something of an exaggeration, that ill-becomes claims of superior judgement and undertanding: those qualities are reflected in precise expression, and imprecise expression reflects something else."

If you are taking my words "for the thousandth time" completely literally, then I'm afraid the problem is on your end. When someone says "for crying out loud", for example, do you think they are really crying out loud?

Since you have twisted my words on occasions too numerous to tally, I don't see a problem with using such a phrase.

If this is all that's left of your argument, you must really be desperate to save face.

"It is apparent you really do not grasp what the ground of contention here is, and what weapons are being employed in it."

Oh, I grasp it all right.

-You tried to claim your opinion on the IWR should be taken as fact, and posted inaccurate and baseless claims about the public's desires in your attempt to do so.

-When you failed at that, you then tried to bring up the JFK and Reagan assassination attempts, as if one's opinion on those issues has any bearing whatsoever on the issue of the IWR vote, or whether or not we should be caring about it.

-Not only that, in bringing up these new topics, you twisted my words and created a straw man argument so astounding that it is clear you have merely falsified my words, posts and beliefs. I never said, claimed or believed any of the things you mentioned.

You will say anything, no matter how outrageous or untrue, just to save face in this argument, even making up your own ideas about my personal beliefs.

I propose one thing to you and one thing only - that we agree to disagree on the issue of the IWR vote and leave it at that. It's clear we will never change each other's minds or votes.

Fair enough?

[The Magistrate]

272. Countless, Sir, Is Even Worse In Its Way Then Thousandth....

Some parting advice, since you seem resolved to keep digging yourself in deeper by obstreporous and belligerent manner....

Never tell anyone to do something you cannot make them do.

If you make a threat, follow through.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[Alexander]

286. Some parting advice for you...

Learn to debate and tolerate disagreement.

[dave_p]

178. That's a cave-in

So we just go along with whatever won't make life difficult?

Let's all just vote GOP, then we'll be free of any accusation of dissent!

I detect a certain tone, and I'm not about to get myself too worked-up over your interesting remarks. ;)

[The Magistrate]

188. And What Tone Would That Be, Sir?

"Enquiring minds want to know!"

[incapsulated]

217. This is where your agrument fails

Because you are arguing for what was the best move, the safe route, the easy way out.

I agree, at the time, voting in favor seemed like a "good move". It may indeed prove to be the ultimate "good move", getting to side with the Patriots against Terra during the height of hysteria for purely political motives while voting for a war you knew was wrong. And at the end of the day you may not even be held responsible for any of it, even as the bodies pile up and there is no way out. Because "it's time to move on".

Yes, it was "good move" for a politician without a drop of integrity or courage.

Not all of them took it.

That is why this is important. Because some of us remember. We prefer to support those who showed courage in the face of adversity and didn't take the easy road, the "good move" regardless of the fact that they knew people were about to die in large numbers. I think that is a pretty good judge of character. And they get the added benefit of having been right.

[The Magistrate]

224. That, Ma'am, Simply Restates And Reinforces My Analysis Of The Matter

There are not very many people in the country, not even in the Democratic primary electorate, who share your inclination to look back and punish. It is not going to be a major element in the primary campaign, not when it has reached the point that votes are being actually cast in large numbers, and it certainly not affecting the collection of funds going on at present. Among the leading contenders for the Presidential nomination of the Party, all who were in office when that resolution came up voted for the thing, and little weight will be given to the protestations of the man who was not there that he would not have voted for it if he had been. What people will care about is what candidates propose to do if elected President.

[incapsulated]

228. Wait...

I do not consider holding a person responsible for their actions punishment. It's accountability. Something this administration has made an art of avoiding. I don't think encouraging that kind of attitude is a good thing for this party.

What DU or the left of center thinks rarely reflects the current mood. Sometimes it is ahead of the curve. Other times it is obsessed with issues that will never matter to anyone much.

On this, I believe they are right, and it doesn't matter to me whether anyone else agrees.

Does this mean that I think Hillary, for instance, will be a horrible president should she be elected? No. But it will encourage those who take the easy way out to continue to do so, at the expense of all of us, in the end.

[The Magistrate]

231. It Is A Distinction Without a Difference, Ma'am

That you attemnpt to draw between punishment and accountability. Your 'accountability' can only, in the context of what we are discussing, consist in defeat in pursuit of higher office, or undergoing some ritual of public shaming. Most people regard these things as punishments more than not.

[incapsulated]

233. Do you reward incompetence or misjudgement?

Whose defeat are we talking about? I have no intention of undermining the eventual nominee whoever they are. But now is the time for choosing who will be that nominee and I will not reward those who I believed failed miserably with my support.

If you believe any failure of judgment, no matter how gross or what the consequences, should be swept under the rug in the name of Party we will no longer have a party worth defending.

[incapsulated]

235. And fyi...

Rewarding incompetence or misjudgment with support is exactly why the republicans are falling apart right now. It does not work in the long run so why encourage it in the short term.

[The Magistrate]

237. None Of the Leading Candidates For The Party's Presidential Nomination, Ma'am

Has done anything over the previous decade or so that leads me to view them as anything but superbly qualified for the office they seek. The people, the country, and the Party, all will benefit greatly by the election of any of them, particularly in company with a Democratic majority in the Congress.

[incapsulated]

240. In that case...

It shouldn't matter to you which one we support or why, then. Which is all this is about, aside from a rather meaningless to the rest of the world flamewar on a forum.

:)

[The Magistrate]

244. Now There Is The Beginning Of Wisdom, Ma'am

Who you support does not matter to me at all. How support is expressed does concern me somewhat, and my inclination is to defend Democrats attacked in manners that seem to me pointless and destructive. In primary fights particularly, where whatever the outcome all must pull together at the end, it is best to speak positively of the candidate one supports, rather than negatively of those one does not, as it is easier to resume friendship afterwards.

A pleasure to cross words with you, Ma'am!

[incapsulated]

245. Since I don't have a dog in this race this time around

I won't be in primary flamefests much.

Although avoiding speaking against other candidates didn't help me much to avoid them here the last time.

Politics can be much like war. Primaries are like a civil war and are never pleasant. But that is the process. For good or bad.

[The Magistrate]

247. Very Like A War Indeed, Ma'am

"An election differs from a civil war only as the bloodless surrender of a force outnumbered in the field differs from Waterloo."

[incapsulated]

232. I also want to add something else

I think a lot of the lack of focus on this vote is because people would have to admit that they are more easily mislead or manipulated than they like to believe. During the vote the polls showed that people had not made up their minds on this issue. If they were looking to their elected representatives for some guidance they were let down and pointed in the wrong direction. By the time the war started, people had begun to buy the whole story. No one wants to admit they were wrong.

[The Magistrate]

238. No One, Ma'am

Looks to Senators or Representatives in Congress for guidance; that circuit flows, when it flows at all, in quite the opposite direction....

[incapsulated]

239. I strongly disagree

When you are dealing with complex international issues and possible war, a vote up or down, split or majority, sends a signal that people notice and absorb. If you were favor of it you had the weight of the congress and senate to back up your arguments, and not a split party line vote either, which gives it more weight. If you were undecided these things will sway you.

[The Magistrate]

241. It Does Not Seem That Way To Me, Ma'am

What people take away from the recorded vote is a sense of the balance between the factions, who is up and who is down. That is about the limit of it. Everyone knew already the Democrats were very weakly positioned in the autumn of '02, so there was no new information to be got. We come back to the same point: the situation had no good options, the leadership chose what seemed to offer the best chance of minimizing the harm that was certain to come, and turned members lose to do what they thought would serve them best. Retreats are seldom pretty, but bad as they are they are at times the best of the bad options available.

[incapsulated]

243. The Repulicans used every Democratic vote

In their pro-war propaganda. The same way they used the UN and twisted that to their advantage. That is something they gave them with that vote. It gave weight to their arguments to invade. You are arguing real inside the beltway attitudes toward the whole thing, average people weren't looking at the vote based on political positioning, this was a current crisis to them.

[The Magistrate]

246. They Did More Than That, Ma'am

In the ensuing political campaign they used the votes of Democrats against the resolution to attack Democrats who had voted for it running in 'red' states, so that in the event they gained little if anything by the vote they themselves cast. A squalid business all around.

But even a solid bloc against the resolution in the Senate would not have improved matters, and it remains my contention that it would have made the outcome of the election that autumn worse for us. Nor would defeat of the resolution have halted the invasion, not by a day. A new Congress, more heavily Republican, and in which every Democrat was a chastened survivor of savage assault as an anti-patriot, would have passed something suitable to the administration before the end of January. People who get their living by engaging in fights, even the bloodless fights of political life, will never fight when no gain can be got by doing so. Losses in such a fight are a dead loss, with nothing to balance them out and make them worth something.

[Alexander]

252. They also got the ammo for Kerry's "flip-flopping" from IWR.

Seems the "retreat" you speak of was more costly than organizing the Democrats (minus Lieberman) to vote against it. It hurt us not only in 2002 but severely in 2004. Bush was able to portray Kerry as a candidate who couldn't make up his mind.

I think the voters disagree with you on whether or not they cared about IWR after 2002 - unless you think more nefarious means cost Kerry the election, like the shenanigans in Ohio? One of the two has to be the correct answer, yes?

The IWR vote is also an insight as to what the candidates will do on foreign policy issues. And many of the same candidates who voted for the IWR are now rattling the saber with Iran. They apparently don't learn from their mistakes, so why should we reward them?

I agree that every Democratic candidate would probably make a decent president, and that they'd all be far better than any Republican - but why not pick one who won't be prone to saber-rattling on Iran and accused of flip-flopping on Iraq?

[Alexander]

229. My, you sure can read minds, can't you?

It's foolhardy to predict what the relevant electorate will care about several months from now. Particularly since even Republicans in Congress are giving Bush a talking-to on the war, I think it's certainly possible voters will reward someone who was consistent on the war from the beginning.

[The Magistrate]

234. And Speculate Baselessly, Apparently, Too, Sir

There really is no end to my wickednesses....

"My opponent matriculated for many years, and has avowed herself to be a thespian!"

[Skittles]

251. they voted to let a thieving, incompetent warmongering piece of SHIT go to war

the can all GO TO HELL

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Bad law is different than voting for death

Bad laws, such as the Patriot Act or even the Bankrupcy bill can be repealed if they don't work.

Unless you can give back life to people, there is no excuse for exercising poor judgement when condemning people to death.

Period.

[moodforaday]

46. You got that last line right

"I can disqualify every liberal who has ever served a day in Congress with this ridiculous litmus test crap."

...And that should tell you something.

Voting for IWR while knowing the intel was cooked was not "bad judgment". It was utmost cowardice - cowardice that resulted in deaths of thousands of people. I can't believe you trust the candidates' new and improved promises over their record. They will say *anything* to get elected. *Nothing* they say NOW should be trusted, only what they were saying and doing when they were not running for office, and when they could avert the tragedies that followed, or at least try to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. What should it tell me, pray tell? I think you missed the point of my post.

I can disqualify EVERY LIBERAL using various "bad votes" as litmus tests. I can name a horrible and/or opportunistic vote made by every progressive hero from Ted Kennedy to Russ Feingold to Paul Wellstone. NO politician has a "perfect" voting record. There is no such thing.

But please, continue on with your IWR jihad.

[Alexander]

128. A vote on money or social issues is much different than a vote on WAR.

Russ Feingold isn't perfect, but he has a lot fewer horrible and opportunistic votes on his record than most of the people who voted for IWR.

What voting for IWR demonstrates is a pattern of cowardice and opportunism - even on the most grave of issues, the issue of when to declare war.

So if you don't care, that's fine. Your priorities obviously aren't the same as mine, or many other DUers.

[dionysus]

158. blithely excuse away lost lives, in the order of thousands

you should be ashamed

[Clark2008]

129. OK - but Edwards failed on ALL the important votes, now didn't he?

IWR
USA PATRIOT Act
No Child Left Behind
Bankruptcy Bill 2001
Yucca Mountain
Predatory lending in big banking

and on and on...

At what point does their judgment come into question?

No one is perfect, but, damn, that list above is atrocious!

[jenmarie]

130. He also voted for

mountain top removal in coal mining.

[Catchawave]

139. Huckabee!

Sorry I couldn't resist, his name makes me smile :sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

39. Kerry's not running

Meanwhile, as for me, it's an aspect to look at, but by no means the only issue I am looking at.

[bklyncowgirl]

80. Bad judgement and/or political cowardice

A vote to go to war is the most serious decision anyone in Congress can make. Maybe I'm naive but this is something that should be done only after viewing all the evidence, weighing the chances of and plans for success as well as the motives of those proposing war.

The IWR is a black mark against anyone who voted for it in my book. I can't say it's the only thing that matters but it is a very big negative.

[Colobo]

22. So the judgment of a candidate doesn't matter, right?

[WildEyedLiberal]

26. The judgment of a candidate is far, far more complicated than one litmus test vote

I prefer to judge the totality of a candidate, not make a simplistic cookie-cutter snap judgment based on a single vote.

[jenmarie]

49. I fear pointing out

all the cases of bad judgement, so will just say that there are more than a few that I am aware of that cause me to not trust one of the candidates who voted for the IWR. And as more information has come out it doesn't even sound like the IWR vote was bad judgement, but political calculation. Which is worse?

[PATRICK]

24. Should be mainly a general topic

rather than a litmus test issue. The problem with all Democratic leaders- and on another level most of America- has been granting Bush certain premises he inherited as president(there's a premise for you!) regarding US policy. Even those against the IWR have subsequently in word and voting record continued to carry on the action and discussion with these premises while reacting on the slant to public deception as a false pressure and the Bush mob constantly changing the rules in the awkward interplay like the Great Exploiter he is.

That can be discussed as the flawed, immoral US foreign policy, the use of armed force, our financial interests(stupidly entwined, almost naively with global pirates and monsters), the crippling ignorance(enforced) of the American public who long ago ceded foreign policy to the DC wonks(who are stubbornly incompetent to say the least). It can also be discussed in the the "what if" of the Bush gang ever succeeding or compromising or acting normally instead of running the US government against itself like we are our own Nicaragua.

One big problem I see is that in the heat of a primary season, points against candidates STILL does not get us any closer to getting an examination of American policy per se back on track. It still is reacting to media skew, agendas, Bush policies as legitimate because, well, he IS the president. The constant sucker game we all play.

But because we get veered away from the determined invincible Coup, away from questioning American policy so brutally manhandled and warped(but pushed to its logical evils), away from holding anyone accountable who counts- we eat our own in a purity game determined by partisan loyalty to one member of the "had" or the other. We hardly can begin to get at the general adhesion of all Dems to discredited policies without coming to the grim electoral judgment that Kucinich is the most on target. So we activists have our own compromised "realism" in operation, I believe. And that too is humiliating as it is playing to the GOP skewed game that strangles choice and progress.

Moving from the theoretical purity to real future progressivism and peace is a process where we should avoid dividing and conquering ourselves for the benefit of the next Bush ham sandwich about to be crammed down our throat by undaunted crooks and liars. We should be upbuilding and rewarding candidates
moving away from the lies and misconceptions and toward substantive change- at times more substantive than the candidates can even imagine. We should want to win big and with a big big debt to put upon who is ever elected that will move them more than the trillions of criminal debt and the American committments abroad.

[dansolo]

28. What they did then

Gives a clue as to what they will do in the future. You know how the saying goes, fool me once...

[mmonk]

32. The past is now.

You just said you wanted to know what our candidates are going to do about Iraq.

[Carolina]

35. The IWR was about WAR,

one of the most important decisions office holders make. Robert Byrd warned on October 10, 2002:

"I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Resolution 46 have several things in common. Congress is being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped-up, politically charged atmosphere of an election year. Congress is being rushed into a judgment.

That is why I stand here today, before this chamber and before this nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution ... for more hard evidence, not more presidential rhetoric ... before we put this great nation on the track to war ...

If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? ... We need to be more careful ... to build up our intelligence efforts ... If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow? When do we attack China? North Korea? Syria?

September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked ... the damage, the deaths and the suffering ... This is what we are about to do to another country. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people ..."

So W.E.L., glad you think IWR doesn't matter. But I respectfully disagree. It was a big deal and Byrd's words then have proven to be all too true. Too bad his Democratic Senate colleagues, who now seek the presidency, failed to heed them WHEN IT MATTERED. What they did says much about what they will do. I'm sick of hindsight apologies, excuses (if I'd known then ...), and other meaningless speechifying.

[politicasista]

57. Thanks for letting Bush off the hook

He and his cronies thank you for that. Has your "perfect" candidate passed YOUR litmus test?


I would rather be thankful to those that are speaking out, have been on Bush's ass from day one, and working to end the Iraq slaughter rather than bitch and moan about what happened 4 and half years ago. That's much more productive in my book.


Too bad you can't do the same.

[Alexander]

72. The Dems could've stopped IWR, in the Senate, if they wanted to.

And there would've been no Iraq War.

Something to think about.

[The Magistrate]

143. Again, Sir, It is Nonesense To Maintain That

The fact is that defeat of this measure in October of '02 would not have delayed the invasion of Iraq by a single day. The next Congress, heavily weighted to the Republican side, would have passed some enabling form as its first order of business. The logistical preparation would have continued in the interim without missing a beat.

[Alexander]

153. You don't know that. You are just making things up.

As I said, the only Senator running in a tight race for re-election who voted against IWR saw his poll numbers go up after the vote.

There was also the option of a filibuster - something the Democrats didn't use enough during the Bush presidency.

Polls taken just before the invasion showed Americans wanted inspections to be completed before starting any war.

You are wrong.

[Carolina]

98. I'm not letting * off the hook

but likewise I cannot give anyone a free pass on this just because they have a 'D' beside their name. And a lot of good speaking out does NOW ... there are no do-overs for DEATH and DESTRUCTION which is precisely what Byrd cautioned his colleagues about. I am fucking sick and tired of after-the-fact statements, press releases and other speechifying bullshit.

I am also fully aware that there is no perfect candidate, but past is prologue, votes matter and many of the Dems seeking the presidency (seeking to lead) failed the leadership test on something as momumental as WAR in 2002!

Sorry YOU can't see the distinction.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Talk is cheap, hindsight is 20/20 and do overs for the dead are impossible.

Politicians define themselves while running for office via what they say.
Proven Leaders are defined by their past actions and the results thereof.

[LWolf]

40. I do.

I don't care what a candidate SAYS they're going to do on January 20th; that's an empty promise. I care that they have a record behind them that shows what they can be counted on to do in the future, that gives their promises some substance.

[politicasista]

41. Excellent post

I want to hear what the candidates plan to do to end the slaughter in Iraq. I don't care about a litmus test right now. This is Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the GOP's illegal, immoral war period.

[paulk]

42. I have to agree

The IWR vote was a trap set by Rove/Bush, and way too many people on the left fell for it.

It was a non-issue with most voters in 2004, and it's even more of one now, IMHO.

[moodforaday]

43. With that logic

Sorry to be nasty, but with your logic, you could vote for Bush - if he could run again and if he promised the right thing. The simple fact is, you do not know what your candidate is going to do on January 20, 2009. You can only infer what they are going to do based on two things: their promises and their past record. You are free to choose one indicator and neglect the other; I just think this is a grossly misguided stance.

[agincourt]

45. I don't care about it either,

The Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal deceived us into war. You can criticize the street smarts certainly of those who voted for it, but 99% of it was a criminal offense by Bush and his media. Lying to start a war to settle family scores and enrich cronies should punished with a charge of treason.

[moodforaday]

47. So what does it mean

for Edwards and other Dems who knew they were being lied to and still voted for the war? They knowingly enabled the crime, the treason. They were not "deceived", they knew.

[w4rma]

48. Obama appears to have voted for every single pro-Iraq war bill placed in front of him.

I have a problem with Obama's much more recent pro-Iraq War votes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Note that the thread also shows that Obama's and Hillary's votes mirror one another on Iraq.

Of the 69 Iraq bills that Obama voted on in the Senate, he only voted differently from Hillary once:
"The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm."

[CTLawGuy]

88. and he also eats babies...

and his middle name is "HUSSEIN" :eyes:

give it a rest.

[w4rma]

94. The Republicans are going to eat Obama up over that. Democrats won't.

(fixed link in above post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244)

[CTLawGuy]

96. oh I'm sure you'll resort to that at some point

unless... you're not a Democrat :shrug:

[w4rma]

97. Why would I say anything except what I said above? I, personally, have absolutely no problem with

his middle name, "Hussein".

I also want to say that getting progressive issues accomplished is the most important issue to me about a candidate, not names.

[CTLawGuy]

100. cause for some reason

you spend all of your time trashing Obama. Why not promote Edwards?

[venable]

174. don't shrug off legit criticism with sarcasm

address the criticism.

[agincourt]

116. Are you 100% sure?

That they voted for this war so that Bush could enrich GOP campaign donors? I don't think so. I think they got deceived on the WMD crap not so Bush/Cheney/Rove could use public funds in war to enrich corporations. The GOPigs and their media are guilty of treason, not the democrats.

[earthlover]

51. Actions speak louder than words

The IWR may not matter to you, but it still makes a huge difference to those, American and Iraqi, who died as a result. It still makes a huge difference that America has turned an outpouring of world-wide sympathy over 9/11 into worldwide hatred and distrust. It still makes a difference that Iraq has diverted our attention away from the very enemies that supposedly provoked it. It still makes a difference that American civil liberties and those of others have been sacrificed in the name of Iraq. It still makes a difference that Iraq is hurting our nation's readiness to respond to emergencies such as the tornado in Kansas.

You may shrug your shoulders and say so what. This is exactly what Bush & Co would want you to do. It is what they say in private I am sure.

Americans were duped into voting for Bush in the first place. He talked also about doing something for the future, just like every politician is want to do.

I don't think how a candidate voted on the Iraq War Resolution is as important as how they would view an IRAN War Resolution...as president.
Beings as how I think a war on Iran would be even worse than Iraq, pardon me if I am a little more skeptical of a candidate who smiles, tells me what I want to hear, and says how they voted in the past really doesn't matter. Sorry, anyone can smile and tell us what we want to hear. But actions speak louder than words.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. Actually I think Bush & Co would rather we blame Dems for the Iraq War

As so many here seem to want to do. That way, he gets off scot free!

This I agree with: "I don't think how a candidate voted on the Iraq War Resolution is as important as how they would view an IRAN War Resolution...as president."

Actions do speak louder than words, which is why I am paying attention to the actions taken NOW in regards to the Iraq war and any possible conflict with Iran, rather than a vote that has little bearing on the world today.

[CTLawGuy]

89. two people can be responsible for the same action

you DO know that right?

If I sell a gun to a man who says he's going to kill his wife with it, and does so, we are both responsible for her death.

You don't see anyone swooning over Bush in this, do you?

Bush is responsible for starting the war, and some Dems are responsible for helping him.

[sampsonblk]

56. You have missed the whole point with your rant

The IWR vote is all about character. How do you know what a candidate will do once in office? How do you know what type of honesty and courage you can expect? The IWR was, for many of them, the biggest chance they will ever get to show some real leadership. If they voted for the IWR, how can you believe what they say they will do now?

Plans my ass. The real question is 'What did you do when it mattered most?'

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. I believe you have conflated the importance of that vote entirely too much

You seem to think it was the only vote in the past 30 years that could possibly demonstrate leadership or character; I think it was a rather inconsequential pit stop on the inevitable road to war. And yes, war was inevitable regardless of how the Senate voted. To believe otherwise is the height of naivete.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but no one is going to suddenly convince me that the IWR was the most important vote of recent history, much less that I should care how potential 2008 candidates voted on it.

[sampsonblk]

62. Uh, no

Sometimes its important to stand up and say NO, even if its not clear it will work. At least that's what I was taught.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. Okay - good to know you're perfect

When you find that perfect candidate who's never made a mistake or taken a wrong position or made a bad vote, please do let me know so I can vote for him or her.

[Alexander]

71. Standing up for what's right doesn't make you "perfect" - get real.

There are plenty of candidates who were wise enough not to vote for this crap.

[beachmom]

91. Who? Kuccinich? Because that is the only one. Sure, that's great

that Obama spoke against the coming war/vote in October 2002, and I give a big kudos to him for doing that. But the reality is that he did NOT vote against the IWR. And when he had a chance to vote to end the war -- the Kerry/Feingold amendment of 2006 -- he voted nay.

2002 was a time when the Dems had no vision and yielded to Bush too much. The Dems who voted against the IWR were not going for the presidency in '04 OR '08 (once again, Kuccinich is not viable, and I would not vote for him) -- they were liberals or long time Dems like Byrd who planned on staying in the legislative branch. That's just not the same.

The fact is you can't name anyone who is viable for the presidency who actually cast a nay vote against the IWR. So maybe you ought to get real.

[Carolina]

99. That's why some of us are so disenchanted

with the current contenders in this race. You say: "2002 was a time when the Dems had no vision and yielded to Bush too much." That's the problem; they showed NO LEADERSHIP or fight and yielded too much to * knowing he and his thugs stole election 2000! They acted as enablers and facilitators WHEN IT MATTERED MOST!

As I said above, I am heartsick that we're off to the races so soon and will likely end up with a billion dollar donkey beholden to the corporations, especially the military industrial complex.

I will untlimately vote for that donkey but I won't be enthusiastic about it.

[Alexander]

124. Gore spoke out against IWR before it was popular to do so.

And he is definitely viable for the presidency. So is Clark.

Don't tell me to "get real" when I clearly have a better grasp of recent history than you do.

[beachmom]

146. Neither Gore nor Clark nor Obama voted nay to the IWR.

They were not in the Congress. That's great if they spoke out against it, but it is NOT the same as being in Congress and voting nay, where there are completely different political dynamics going on. NOBODY except Kuccinich voted nay to the IWR and has or is running for president. Making condescending remarks does not change this fact. Funny thing is is that once Obama DID get into the Senate he failed to vote to bring troops home in '06.

[Alexander]

154. So? They didn't vote for it either.

Besides, typically the best presidential candidates don't come directly from Congress.

Making condescending remarks does not change this fact.

BTW - you might want to learn how to spell "Kucinich" some day.

[sampsonblk]

82. Ridiculous

No one is asking for perfection. Is it too much to ask for a Democrat to NOT enable this criminal administration?

[beachmom]

102. Who? Name that Democrat. There are none. Only Kuccinich.

And he's not presidential. I think the IWR is important but I think it is more important to look at the candidate's entire record to see if you can gleam more of what they are about. I don't agree with the OP that the IWR means NOTHING. I do believe it represents a very bad moment in time for the Dems. But many have changed since then, and will not make the same mistake again. STILL, check their records to see what their world view is OUTSIDE of the IWR (which was forced upon them by Bush), like, say, how they voted in the '90s.

[Alexander]

133. For the last goddamned time...AL GORE did not enable this war.

Neither did Wes Clark, Barack Obama or Bill Richardson.

You claim there isn't a "viable" anti-war candidate but at least two were staring you in the face at the debate last week.

"But many have changed since then, and will not make the same mistake again."

Who? Name that Democrat. There are none. Not even Edwards. All the ones who voted yes on IWR are now pulling the same shit and saber-rattling with Iran, as well as some who didn't (*cough* *cough* Obama).

[AtomicKitten]

136. word

:thumbsup:

[beachmom]

147. NONE of the Democrats you have named voted no.

They were NOT in the Congress. ONLY Kuccinich voted no. I think that is very telling for where our party was at in 2002. Those IN POWER who wanted to run for president voted YES. Only those OUT OF POWER spoke out against the war. There is not one brave, viable soul running for president who voted no to the Iraq War Resolution. And one of the anti-war people, Obama, once he was in the Senate, went with the crowd and failed to vote for the Kerry/Feingold amendment. Funny what being in power does to you. (and for the record, I am leaning Obama, but with my eyes wide open to his weaknesses)

And I would appreciate it if you were more civil and did not swear at me.

[Alexander]

155. So? They all spoke out against it before the vote took place.

"Funny what being in power does to you."

Power corrupts. Our pro-IWR Senators were playing politics with the lives of soldiers, and that's wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop making excuses for lawmakers with terrible judgment.

[calteacherguy]

61. I use copies of the IWR for toilet paper. nt

[IndianaGreen]

65. The families of nearly 3,400 dead GIs do care about the IWR

Their sons and daughters were sent to battle under false pretenses, and the Congress failed to do its job, preferring instead to give Bush a blank check for war because they thought it would be over in a matter of a handful of weeks.

Congress is still failing to do its job to end the war. All Congress has to do is NOTHING! Let the money run out without passing a supplemental, and watch Bush have a psychotic breakdown on national TV.

Impeach Bush and Cheney!

[jcrew2001]

261. Don't tell me those men and women didn't serve with honor

They signed up and served knowing full well the risks of warfare. They served their country proudly and I commend them for their sacrifice. They serve for the commander-in-chief and it is his responsibility to use the military as he chooses.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. The IWR was a great test of Presidential Leadership...

Those who voted against the IWR listened to the minority viewpoints on the intelligence and other factors and despite all of the persuasion from the administration and the political pressure, they made the right decision. A President will have to face that same situation many many times during his/her administration.

[beachmom]

86. There are no REAL contenders in the 2008 campaign who

voted no to the IWR. Only Kuccinich did, and he is not a viable candidate. (Apologies for my bluntness if you support him)

I think the painful truth is that this was a failure by our PARTY, because the Dems had not formed a countervision to the Bush doctrine in '02. It is a blight on the party, but one we are coming back from.

The IWR matters, I agree. But we need to face facts that you can't pin it on individuals when it was just plain a bad period for the weakened Democratic party.

[Alexander]

137. Speaking out against the war in 02 is just as good - and Gore, Clark and Obama did that.

Richardson also didn't vote for IWR, and he's certainly much more viable than Kucinich.

Half the Senate and most of the House (including Pelosi, someone else who may have a shot at being president) voted NO.

It wasn't a failure of the party.

It was drawing a line in the sand - who does the right thing, and who caves to political expediency?

We sure found out the answer to that one.

[Forkboy]

70. Feel free to tune me out then.

That's YOUR choice.Roe v. Wade was an old vote too.Still seems sort of relevant today though.Or do you not care about that either.I mean really,the damn vote was over twenty years ago.

I would be proud to be tuned out by you.The war vote doesn't bother you,you judge candidates by their partisan supporters,and you think Yogi fucking Berra is a source of life guiding wisdom.Being tuned out by you sounds like the right place to be.

[FrenchieCat]

112. !

"you think Yogi fucking Berra is a source of life guiding wisdom. :rofl:

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. "I think Yogi Berra is a source of life guiding wisdom"

Did I say that? Did I imply that?

No.

Did I imply that I don't care about Roe v. Wade? No.

Thanks for the dishonest straw men, though. By the way - yeah, this post is an example of the kneejerk overemotional pap that DU is awash in.

I'm glad you're proud that your overheated rhetoric isn't going to convince anyone besides diehard ideologues who already think exactly like you. That's the way to build an electoral majority. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

125. Yeah,your OP was a shining example on how to build majorities.

:eyes:

[noamnety]

74. If you don't care how politicians vote on key issues

You must be very happy with all politicians. I know I would be, if I only judged them on their words, not their actions.

[JTFrog]

76. Those of us who feel this was an important vote

disgust you? WE DISGUST YOU? wow

How about being disgusted by the lies told by those senators who had the real intel and said they were sworn to secrecy and couldn't reveal the truth? Ask Mike Gravel exactly how much BS that is. He should know, he was in the same position during VietNam and he took classified intel directly to the senate floor as a matter of conscience.

Time for me to tune out in disgust.

[FrenchieCat]

115. "senators who had the real intel ". You mean

like These folks? :shrug:

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -

BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN, who also introduced the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another vote for Congress. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
Amendment Defeated.
Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN, who also introduced the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
Amendment Defeated
Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

-----------------
THESE ARE THE FACTS!

[Adelante]

122. Rockefeller and Feinstein voted YES on Levin

I hadn't realized. Not that it means they should have the fucking audacity to run for president.

[dave_p]

83. It matters

When a candidate for the most powerful office in the world gets it 100% wrong on a war that's destroyed a country and killed hundreds of thousands for no legitimate purpose, it matters.

If they've truly learned the lesson and reversed their position on an informed and principled basis that'll carry over to their future decisions, I'm willing to judge them anew - always have been.

But that's the problem. I don't see the evidence that they have. I'm willing to see it. But it isn't there yet. How they speak and vote on Iran will go some of the way to answering that.

[beachmom]

84. Past performance matters. It predicts what the candidate will

actually do, as opposed to what they SAY they'll do. However, I think it is a mistake to focus on only ONE vote. It is smarter to look at an entire career of votes as well as past jobs and any activism the candidate was involved with.

Past performance will give an indication of what that person will do in January '09. Sure, they SAY they'll get us out of Iraq or help the poor or bring universal health care, but it is up to discerning voters to take a hard look at that person's entire career to see what difficult decisions they made in the past, or whether they punted on doing the right thing.

The IWR does matter, WEL. It represented a moment in time where the Democrats yielded to Bush how to prosecute the war on terror. I think the Democrats had not yet formed their own vision, and this is why they lost their voice for a time. This is the history, and for some Democrats out in the country (not just on DU), this is an unforgiveable offense. I view it as a bad time for the Democrats, and they did poorly in the 2002 midterm election, if you recall. I think that John Kerry turned that around in September 2004, when he came out and declared that Iraq was the "Wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place". Yes, I realize that others voted against the IWR or spoke out against the war (but didn't have to vote), but the Democratic leadership overwhelmingly did. And when our 2004 candidate uttered that phrase, it was the beginning of our coming out of the woods. It ultimately did not sweep John Kerry to the WH, but I do think it was the roots of our doing very well in 2006.

Maybe what we're looking for is some more truthtelling in the 2008 campaign, and when we get it, and it rings true, we'll have found our candidate.

[GeorgeGist]

85. Those who choose to ignore history ...

:thumbsdown:

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

87. I could forgive most votes, WildEyed, but not this one

No decision is more important for a legislative body than war or peace. And because of that vote in 2002, Hillary Clinton and a number of other Democrats have condemned our country to a horrific defeat, and millions of Iraqis, Americans, Britons and others to death, grievous injury and/or horrid psychological damage from an incredibly bloody war.

If it had just been the IWR vote then even that might be forgivable, but Hillary in particular has been a consistent supporter of this catastrophe in the succeeding years. As much as the Republicans, she's been a prime enabler of this Mesopotamian fiasco-- and on ongoing one, at that.

[Solly Mack]

90. Yeah! And the dead are dead - it's not like they can be brought back!

Let's just all get over it already

And damn, can't undo torture, so let's get over that already too

Can't give back the stolen years of illegal and indefinite detention

So much to just get over and move on from...

Get busy people!

How can we possibly move into the future if we're concerned about past actions that can't be undone? Sure, it sucks about all the dead, injured and maimed - but gosh darnit, we can fix all that just by getting over it and moving on. I'm sure no politician will ever vote the same way again knowing what they know now and I just know America would never ever lose its damned mind again and cave in to the whims of a madman. We can't expect our representatives to answer to the people - they have a job to do! It's just not politically expedient to hold people accountable for their actions. We can't expect answers when the future is at stake.


Anyone in need of a sarcasm tag has to spend evenings writing, "I need to buy a vowel" a thousand times a day until they get a clue.

[Hart2008]

92. Right...Reward incompetence with a promotion! NOT!

Just like corporate America!

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[beachmom]

107. So I guess you'll be sitting out the 2008 election, because no

one (except Kuccinich) meets your high standards. And Kuccinich will not be the nominee.

[Alexander]

109. Gore, Clark, Gravel, Richardson, Kucinich...

None of these guys voted for IWR.

And all the IWR supporters are repeating their mistake by saber-rattling with Iran.

People are tired of war and destruction. These aren't "high" standards, unless you are another kind of "high".

[beachmom]

149. Only Kuccinich was IN CONGRESS. Can't you see the pattern?

Only viable presidential candidates OUT OF POWER spoke out against the war/IWR in the fall of '02. All viable presidential candidates IN POWER voted yes to the IWR. And one anti-war figure -- Obama -- who is now IN POWER immediately moved to the Right on the war once he arrived at the Senate, voting no against the Kerry/Feingold amendment which set a timetable for withdrawal (a position he now supports). The fact is there are no perfect Democrats who put their vote where their mouth was. Not.a.one.

[Alexander]

156. Yeah, power and politics kept the others from doing the right thing.

Just because someone's in power when they support this doesn't make it right.

Quit whitewashing the failure of our elected officials to listen to their constituents, who wanted inspections complete before a single shot was fired.

[dave_p]

168. I can see the pattern

Kucinich was in Congress and voted against. Now he's a candidate. And he's been uniquely consistent on the whole issue. He put his vote where his mouth was. But his candidacy's questioned on accounts of electoral viability.

But who determines that viability? The media? The GOP? It should be Democrats and voters. He's certainly not viable if the party isn't prepared to fight for what's right rather than just fielding someone who got it 100% wrong on the biggest foreign-policy decision in decades.

There's a pattern. Kucinich was right then. He's been right since. And that's why he's considered not to be a perfect candidate.

[Alexander]

173. Don't forget Nancy Pelosi.

She not only voted against the IWR, but led the effort in the House to vote "no" on it.

The whitewashers here would have you believe that voting "no" meant political doom, but that simply isn't true. Wellstone, Feingold and Boxer, contrary to similar "conventional wisdom", did not suffer political defeat for their actions. Pelosi, for her part, is now Speaker of the House, with the possibility of being POTUS if Bush and Cheney are both removed from office.

Beachmom claims the "no" voters aren't presidential material, yet we could be seeing a Pelosi presidency if impeachment picks up more steam.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. Amen. (nt)

[PresidentObama]

103. It was an error in judgment to give him the authority. BUT, those who voted didn't pull the trigger

Bush pulled the trigger. The blood is on Bush's hands, not Democrats. If you want to debate whether one has the judgment to lead based on whether to give another man the authority to go to war, fine!! But the Democrats who voted for the IWR certainly didn't say "rush to war Bushie"

[Forkboy]

105. No,they just helped to load the gun.

[Hart2008]

110. They gave the drunk the car keys!

Those who want to only blame Bush for the war omit the constitutional duty of the Congress to declare war.
The IWR was like giving car keys to a drunk
They keep saying the drunk shouldn’t have been driving.

I keep saying, “yes, but they shouldn’t have given the drunk the keys and they had to try to stop him:
Both are responsible in different degrees, but both are responsible for the resulting vehicular homicide.
They refuse to acknowledge the lesser degree of responsibility by the Dems in the Senate for the problem.

The founding fathers foresaw a President like Bush. That is why they gave the Congress to sole power to declare war:
“In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson

The Dems in the Senate who voted the IWR up placed their faith in a man, and unshackled him from the chain of the Constitution.

We are still cleaning up the mess.

Are we to now reward incompetence in the Senate with a promotion to the Presidency?

The bigger issue for this election is not: was the invasion of Iraq justified nor is the military occupation sustainable? The big question is: Are we a Republic or are we an Empire? Those who only want to blame Bush for his execution of the military campaign and occupation fail to address that big question. In fact, by only blaming Bush but failing address the issue of the appropriacy of delegating the Constitutional power to declare war to the President, this clique of Senators betrays their intent: They don’t want to end the imperial Presidency, they want to continue it, with one of themselves as the imperial President.

It is time to restore the Republic.

It is time for Gary Hart!

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Alexander]

111. Gary Hart? Is he even running?

I thought he was done with presidential races when he sat out 2004.

[Hart2008]

114. Maybe, he hasn't ruled it out yet. We are working on him.

The draft Hart website should be up shortly.
We will notify everyone when the draft site is running.
The Hart blog should be restarting soon as well!

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

[Alexander]

132. I wouldn't mind seeing him enter the race, even though he's 70.

We could use some more sensible foreign policy experts at the Democratic debates right now.

Much like Kucinich, Hart's is a voice that should be heard, even if I don't necessarily want him to win.

[Hart2008]

138. His age is irrelevant. He is still very, very sharp. The field lacks foreign policy judgment.

Yes his voice should be heard. The IWR and resulting occupation are a disaster.
If he enters it will be to win, not for show.

[dogman]

106. So talk is louder than action?

Rhetoric wins over substance. You're just what a politician dreams about. Nixon promised to end the Vietnam War and it sure helped his ambitions, not so much for the troops.

[Carolina]

113. Touche, dogman!

Nixon's 1968 campaign strategy of a 'secret plan' to the end the Vietnam War is still secret! Never materialized. His real secret was how to steal a second term by rigging the 1972 election but the burglars of the DNC headquarters at Watergate got caught... Nixon was out of office by August 1974 but the last American troops weren't out of Vietnam until the fall of Saigon in 1975!

So much for words, political speeches, campaign promises and other bullshit.

Substance matters. Votes and actions matter.

[beachmom]

151. Actually, it was only the talkers (as opposed to voters) who went

against the IWR who are actually viable presidential candidates. Not ONE viable presidential candidate voted no to the IWR. They either voted yes or were not in power.

So, yeah, it IS all about talk, because we have no nay voters to the IWR to vote for, unless Kuccinich is your guy (and imo, he's not a viable candidate).

[dogman]

159. I doubt I will vote for any one who voted for the IWR in the primary.

Unless that is all that is left by then. I sure would not support them now.

[MBS]

119. terrific, WEL. I agree 100% n/t

[JVS]

127. Shame on you

[Prophet 451]

131. "What is past is prelude" n/t

[Joe Fields]

140. Let's not tap dance around the issue here, pal.

If you got something to say, come right out and say it....

[JNelson6563]

144. Off topic

Just wanted to mention the Kerry pic in your sig-line is one of my favorites of him.

:toast:

[WildEyedLiberal]

209. Thank you!

It's one of mine too :toast:

[bunkerbuster1]

145. "This f-ing website will still be having IWR flamewars in the year 2050"

Thanks for the chuckle.

And I appreciate your point, well made.

[FrenchieCat]

148. Well if we are still in Iraq in 2050.............this might still quite possibly

be the case!

[Skittles]

160. well, it must be nice to be so easy for you to excuse an illegal war

it most certainly is NOT for me

[WildEyedLiberal]

211. I don't excuse BUSH'S illegal war n/t

[incapsulated]

162. John Kerry isn't running.

Stop fighting for his primary campaign, it doesn't exist.

If you don't think the media won't throw an IWR vote in any nominees face now that the tide as turned against the war, you haven't been paying attention.

[Adelante]

169. Hey, Incap

Smooches :hug:

I don't think this is about Kerry or 2004 for WEL. I disagree with her 1000 million %. But her viewpoint is not uncommon on DU lately in terms of 2008 candidates with IWR YES votes. For me, it's about the prewar intelligence, what the 2008 candidates knew and when they knew it in 2002, that led to a YES vote. I already know they're sorry or were mistaken or were misled, or whatever, and I don't care. They are not off the hook just because they are running for president; in fact the hook for them is in deepest. Perhaps if the Phase II prewar intelligence report is finally sprung, I can move on, we'd have to see. As of now, I will not vote for any IWR voter in the primaries.

[incapsulated]

184. Hey Sweetie

:hug:

Well, it's the tone that made me make that snarky comment. This was less, I don't care lets move on, and more "you are all idiots for even thinking this is important, stop saying that!!!" I think it is borne out of her defense of Kerry, which is understandable, I sympathize but let it go. If it isn't important to you, really, there are only a handful of candidates that it's an issue for and everyone hates Hillary, lol.

(I don't but on DU she is the anti-Christ it seems)

[WildEyedLiberal]

210. Thank you for disagreeing with me civilly WesDem

I appreciate it very much.

And no, incapsulated, this isn't about John Kerry, and I don't really appreciate you dragging him into it. My OP was very self-explanatory - I am uncommitted to a candidate in 2008, and the "He voted for the IWR!! Burn him!!!" vs "He didn't vote for the IWR!!! He's our savior!!!" back-and-forth on DU is doing nothing to sway me - I'd rather hear candidate partisans talk about what their candidate's current plans and positions are.

[incapsulated]

216. You did a lot more than just that

This isn't just about how people are discussing the candidates, you injected your own position on the issue. Which means you DO have one. And dismiss those who consider this an issue as Dem bashers.

It's HIS war, and it may make you feel superior or clever to blame Dems for it, but I quit caring about the progressive purity one-upmanship games on this site a long time ago.

No one is blaming Democrats for the war but they are holding them responsible for a vote that enabled it.

I am sorry but I do not consider this some meaningless vote which the only purpose of is to bash Dems. In fact, I think this is the single most important vote made in Congress in the past 10 years. I am no ideological puritan, either, not by a long shot. But a vote like this comes along very rarely. I'm not going to argue the issue itself but dismissing those for whom this is important is silly. It may not matter at all in the primaries. But it matters to me and a lot of people further to the left than the rank and file and that is just the way it is.

But I DO think that the fact that you were a Kerry supporter enters into this. You could not support Kerry and not have this be an "issue" for you on DU and if he was running you would be very busy defending it. It's ingrained in any supporter of any candidate, it pushes your personal buttons for this to be an issue because it would be if Kerry was running.

[WildEyedLiberal]

219. Obviously, we disagree about the IWR's importance

I agree with Magistrate upthread that the war was happening no matter what and that it's not really relevant how the IWR vote turned out because it was essentially a cruel political trap that would have no ultimate bearing on the actual course of history. Yes, it was a bad vote. I'm disappointed that some Dems voted yes, including Kerry. I do not believe in using the vote as a one-size-fits-all method of judging candidates, however, which is what I was trying to convey in my OP. My primary vote for 2008 will not be swayed by who voted how on IWR, or how potential candidate X "would have" voted if they'd been in the Senate, etc.

My OP was actually inspired by watching Edwards and Obama supporters have the same flamewar with each other about the IWR over and over and over again in at least a dozen different threads. I just got sick to death of seeing it and if that is what the primary season on DU is going to consist of, then I will probably just avoid GD until the candidate is chosen. For the record, I seriously have no candidate I prefer in the field now, so this isn't about ginning up support for any of them. It's just my futile wish that we could discuss the 2008 primary without an endless - and pointless - rehasing of the same damn thing. No one is changing anyone's minds with the IWR flamewars, so what's the point?

[incapsulated]

226. DU isn't the real world

Big secret, I know. The flamewars that go on here usually amount to not too much. Doesn't mean DU isn't right but it isn't mainstream. I've said before that if DU's opinion on things reflected the rest of the country Dean or Clark would have won the nomination.

That said, this is a touchy issue for the left-of-center blogsphere. It will be hard to avoid during the primaries.

I don't have a horse in this race either, this time around. I was a diehard Clarkie but I kind of doubt he is going to run, I will be really surprised at this point if he does. I live in NY and Hillary will win here no matter what happens in the primaries. To me, this time, it's all about the end game, no matter who gets the nom.

Frankly, I'm relieved. These flamewars and emotional rollercoasters during the primaries suck. I feel detached from it all and I'm kinda enjoying that.

:)

[Forkboy]

236. "I feel detached from it all and I'm kinda enjoying that."

I feel that way in every election because the people I like never poll above 10%. :)

On the plus side of that,I never feel so emotionally attached to any candidate that I lose objectivity in regards to both them and their opponents.If they were in a tooth and nail fight to win I'd be much more partisan,and most likely end up like a lot of people here who couldn't see past their own choice to save their lives.

[incapsulated]

242. Heh

Last time around my heart was in it, totally, and so it was very bruised. Even a comment on a forum against my guy would send me into palpitations.

It's a kind of madness that I'm happy to give a miss this time around. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

262. I know what you mean

As sad as I am that Kerry isn't running because I think he's the best choice for America (as you can understand w/ Clark I'm sure) at the same time it's a relief not to be involved in the shit-flinging of the DU primary flamewars.

I live in Illinois where Obama will win no matter what, so I suppose it's kind of a moot point for me too. I guess my OP was just a scream of frustration because I really do want to figure out who would be the best candidate to support this time around, but all of the bickering back and forth between candidate supporters over the same old issues isn't helping make that decision any easier. I'm certainly not going to be getting any helpful information from the MSM. Maybe the difficulty of my decision is just a testament to the weakness of this field of candidates, which I certainly won't argue. NONE of them excites me.

I guess it's just time for me to tune it out and sit back and watch the whole spectacle unfold. Peace :)

[MadHound]

165. Nice of you to so conveniently sweep away the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents

Don't care about then, just about now eh? Well gee, don't you think that what happened with a candidate then is indicative of what that candidate will do now? Frankly if a candidate was fucking stupid enough to buy into Bushboy's war then(and continue to buy into it by voting for the ongoing funding of it), then in my book that candidate is either too stupid, gullible, or too much of a warhawk to be in office. Actions matter, especially ones that cost tens of thousands of lives.

Voting for the war is also indicative of how well such a candidate will listen to the collective will of their boss, We the People. Back right before the vote went down, millions of people were out in the streets, across the country and around the world, loudly saying NO to the war. In fact most of our international allies were saying NO to the war. Polls taken at the time showed that the majority of American people(68% if I remember correctly) were stating that they didn't want to do a damn thing until the inspectors reported back. And in the days before the IWR vote took place, messages coming into Congress by email, snail mail, phone and fax were running 268-1 against the IWR. Thus, those who voted for the IWR didn't give a damn what their bosses, We the People thought. Nope, instead they voted either out of fear or for what their corporate master wanted, which was war. Thus, such votes matter, for it shows how much a candidate actually values, and pays attention to the will of We the People.

Actions matter, votes matter, and you ignore them at your own peril. Such willing blindness isn't the best way to approach an election for the highest office in the land.

[venable]

176. the OP does not 'sweep away the deaths', nor do those who voted yes

it is possible to have voted for the IWR because you thought, wrongly, that it would save lives.


this is bush's war.

[dave_p]

179. Bush's war - and a far wider error

It's also possible to have voted for it because it just didn't seem important enough to keep digging till you had the truth. That's not good enough. They're not entitled to stop digging because it's the soft option.

If anyone thought this debacle would save lives, they're not fit to run for dog-catcher.

[venable]

181. it wasn't a debacle then, it was a controversy about whether wmd existed

and which course of action would ultimately save more lives.


choices were made.


to not see this as bush's war is revisionist.

[dave_p]

182. There were plenty of warnings of the disaster ahead

Nope, not buying it.

Iraq's sectarian violence is all some big surprise? Not to me. It's part of why many of us said no. If they didn't see the cost, we're at least entitled to ask for evidence that they've improved their way of looking at overseas issues. In fact that's all I ask.

Bad choices were made. They need to show me their future choices will be better. They haven't.

It's Bush's war, but others nodded it through. That's not revision, it's record. To absolve those who approved this horror out of expediency is revisionist.

[Alexander]

183. How come I could tell Powell was lying about the WMDs,

Yet half of our Senators couldn't?

It must mean I'm either really perceptive, or they fucked up big time.

Adlai Stevenson at the UN he was not. Anyone who was half-awake during that farce could tell the sole evidence for attacking Iraq was some grainy pictures on a PowerPoint slide.

[venable]

206. maybe because Tenet didn't look you in the eye and say the WMD were real

which is the basis upon which Edwards made his vote

[mr.alleycat]

220. Gee I bet it's hard to shave in the morning

Maybe he got tired all the razor cuts.
After reading Time's story, I'd say he's trying to coat the "Teflon" pretty thick.

[Alexander]

222. So it's all okay, because Edwards trusted a CIA Director?

That implies his judgment is even worse.

Don't people know better than to trust an agency known for its habitual liars and spooks?

[venable]

254. are you kidding? a president is a fool if he listens to the CIA?

what the hell do you think the agency exists for?


of course they have some black marks, but you say a Senator advised by the Director should never believe him?


Tin foil stuff.

[Solon]

259. The CIA exists to overthrow democratic governments, worldwide, that they don't like...

and to subvert presidents in the United States that they don't like, Bay of Pigs comes to mind.

[venable]

268. i happen to agree, for the most part

and certainly their history is riddled with this.

but where does that leave us when a CIA director is the keeper of intel?

when a decision is being made about going to war, should one assume that the director of the cia is lying in order to get his way, ie overthrow hostile goverrnments.

if what you are saying is true, we should just assume, at every step, that the CIA is lying, and I don't believe that is the case.



(By the way, I would change the line about overthrowing democratic governments, as the US is an blind to government types, they are either friend of foe, regardless of whether or not they are democratic - ie we can go after Allende and Saddam, indifferent to the level of their democracy).

[Alexander]

273. Then why should the CIA be trusted?

"but where does that leave us when a CIA director is the keeper of intel?"

Personally, it left me looking for other sources of intel. Particularly since Scott Ritter was a weapons inspector in Iraq, and in his judgment Saddam didn't have any WMDs.

"when a decision is being made about going to war, should one assume that the director of the cia is lying in order to get his way, ie overthrow hostile goverrnments."

Given the CIA's 0-for-100 track record since about 1945...don't assume they are lying, but don't assume they are honest either.

Personally I have taken every word coming out of Tenet's mouth with a grain of salt. As I said, honest people are never CIA Directors.

"if what you are saying is true, we should just assume, at every step, that the CIA is lying, and I don't believe that is the case."

I will go even further and say the CIA should be completely scrapped as a foreign intelligence agency - they have done far more harm than good in the world. Kennedy proposed something similar, and I'm not surprised he was murdered shortly after proposing this.

"(By the way, I would change the line about overthrowing democratic governments, as the US is an blind to government types, they are either friend of foe, regardless of whether or not they are democratic - ie we can go after Allende and Saddam, indifferent to the level of their democracy)."

Yes, they try to overthrow all governments they don't like. From Mossadegh in Iran to Castro in Cuba to Allende in Chile to Saddam in Iraq, the CIA's track record is atrocious. It's even been found that they helped distribute crack in US cities in the 1980s - the organization is far too powerful and corrupt.

For our sake as well as everyone else's, the CIA needs to be eliminated. The agency should never have existed in the first place.

[Solon]

275. Actually, we do prefer despotic regimes over democratic ones, for a very simple reason...

despotic regimes are more predictable, have high corruption rates, and can be bribed, democracies, on the other hand, generally have to keep the people of the nation happy and governments and policies can change every few years, depending on who is elected into office. Despotic regimes usually keep the same policies, especially towards trade and foreign policy, when the despots themselves benefit from it, and they can be in power for decades.

Its only when said despots start displaying independence from U.S. policy do they get in trouble, in the case of Saddam, they ASKED the U.S. for permission to invade Kuwait, another non-democratic nation, because they were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Bush Senior said yes, then, when Saddam did what he wanted, he turned around and fought a war against Saddam and helped impose sanctions on Iraq, for doing U.S. bidding. But, before the Gulf War, Saddam already displayed some independence from U.S. policy, which disturbed the power player here, so they decided to defang him, which they did.

The other famous case would be Noriega, who, as we all know, was a CIA asset from the beginning, and used to run drugs for them, to fund some of their black budget shit. He then displayed some independence from U.S. policy himself, for his own personal benefit, obviously, but that didn't stop the U.S. from disposing of him, he now the leader of a Federal Prison Cell, convicted of, running drugs, irony is thick in this case.

I do find it ironic that the CIA's FIRST successful overseas operation involved overthrowing the democratic government of Iran, we are still paying for that stupidity. What is really interesting is that, while Truman signed the act that created the CIA, he never intended for it to be used this way, and it wasn't until Ike came into office that the Iran operation was approved, Truman rejected it, for obvious reasons, President Mossadegh was a fan of FDR, LOVED the United States, and modeled his own reforms in his country after the New Deal. In fact, a lot of leaders in a lot of nations tried the same reforms in their nations, Allende is one of them, all fans of FDR, all overthrown by the U.S. government, under fascist CIA direction.

I don't say fascist lightly, in this case, the CIA itself was formed by the Gehlen Organisation, members of the Foreign Forces-East, of the Third Reich, and most of them were also double agents, Reinhard Gehlen was the leader of this group. Thanks to operation Paperclip, U.S. intelligence was damaged for a good generation due to the amount of double agents in the Organization.

[Alexander]

265. Are YOU kidding? A president should always trust the CIA?

"what the hell do you think the agency exists for?"

Mainly to lie, deceive and overthrow governments they don't like, from Iran to Cuba. And I should be trusting these people?

Are you seriously claiming Tenet is trustworthy just because he's a CIA Director? Nobody gets to that position by being nice or honest.

"of course they have some black marks,"

Your whitewashing of the CIA's history is shocking. You call them "black marks" but that's almost all the agency does. The CIA is known for its spooks, liars and cover-ups.

"but you say a Senator advised by the Director should never believe him?"

I'm saying you should not excuse his pro-IWR vote just because he trusted a CIA Director. DCIs have a reputation of being untrustworthy, going back to when the agency was first created under Truman.

"Tin foil stuff."

What's really tin foil material is expecting that an agency known for its habitual lying and overthrowing foreign governments should all of a sudden be considered trustworthy on the question of overthrowing yet another foreign government. :eyes:

[benny05]

278. Who sezzzzzzz?

That Edwards trusted Tenet? Bob Shrum, friggin' loserman? If you believe that, then you love the Politico more than most of us.

[Alexander]

285. Venable said it. I was simply responding.

I don't believe it at all.

[MadHound]

180. Oh. Really?

"I do NOT give a shit how your goddamn candidate voted in 2002 or how they would've voted blah blah blah."

I would say that is a pretty sweeping statement right there. It implies that the OP is not willing to hold politicians accountable for their previous actions:shrug: Such unwillingness to exercise accountability is not a good practice in any sort of organization, be it a business, household or government.

But perhaps we should let the the OP speak for their position.

And frankly, the intent of our representatives in a representative democracy is to be the collective voice for their constituents. This is their primary job duty. Yet as I showed above, many, many failed to fulfill their job duty, dismally. Why should we reward failure?

[Solon]

205. War saves lives, since when?

That's a stupid justification, because, BY DEFINITION, war means death! Seriously, if anyone thinks war can be used to save people's lives, they need to be stripped of any power to influence or fund our foreign policy, and hopefully get locked up in the loony bin for being crazy.

[venable]

207. it's not 'stupid', it is a consideration

that many make, rightly or wrongly.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, rightly or wrongly, considered a military strategy to save lives.

While none of the below proved to be true, there were some, including Tenet, who claimed that they were:

Proposed: Saddam had WMD, and had imminent nuke capability, and had designs via various groups intent on using them in the US.

If that were true, and if the promise of a simple ouster after which democracy would flourish actually came to pass - with many military experts testifying that it would play out this way.

Then war would save lives.

Of course, I didn't believe this, nor likely did you, and many others didn't as well. But the Director of the CIA told Edwards this was all true, and so he voted to save lives.

Call it wrong, but don't call it stupid. It was wrong, but in the light of that day, to that person, listening to that head of the CIA (which you were not), it made sense.

I don't want to use the same derogatory term for your argument as you've made for mine, but I will simply say that the sentiment that no war can ever save lives is not historically or intellectually accurate.

[Solon]

213. False premise, you assumed that such things are possible...

when, in reality they are not.

Your scenario about Saddam would make a bad TV movie, but would be something that simply couldn't happen in real life. There was NO evidence that Saddam had ANY Uranium, and that was plainly true, and his WMDs(biological and chemical) expired in 1993. These were WIDE KNOWN facts, not anything secret, and even though the inspectors were withdrawn and Saddam threw up symbolic blocks to stop the inspections, even those guys knew he didn't have enough power to threaten even Kuwait, much less the United States.

It would have taken him years to develop nuclear weapons on his own, much longer than Iran, and they weren't under an embargo. Buying one would be expensive, and he didn't have the missile capability to barely reach Israel much less the United States. Plus, your ticking bomb scenario, if it were true, couldn't have been stopped by a war, Saddam would have smuggled any such nuclear material out of his country, we would invade, and New York or Washington D.C., due to our distraction, would have been in ashes.

As far as the CIA, they have no real credibility, they FAILED at predicting the USSR's fall for crying out loud. Their ENTIRE reason for existence, and they failed at their mission. The only thing the CIA is good for is overthrowing Democratic governments and installing dictators for U.S. or British Corporate interests.

No war, in the History of the World, was ever fought for altruistic reasons, yes this even includes the "Good War" where even the lauded United States condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths AFTER they knew about the death camps by refusing to bomb the rail lines leading to them, or refusing visas for refugees.

I call it stupid because that is precisely what it is, to be ignorant of history and lacking basic critical thinking skills is simply something we cannot afford to tolerate for the person who is supposed to head the most powerful military force the world has ever known.

[venable]

214. I assumed nothing. I stated a scenario that you said couldn't exist.

and you can debunk the specifics of Iraq/Saddam all you want, that does not change the falseness of your claim that no war could ever be fought to save lives. You are just wrong.

Debunking the Saddam scenario is easy, and you or I could have done it beforehand, and probably did (I know I did, emphatically).

This still does not change the fact that Edwards was told by Tenet that millions could die if we don't take out Saddam.

It was wrong to believe him, but there you have it.

[Solon]

263. Look, its simple, all Edwards had to do at the time was open up ANY foreign paper...

and the facts would have been laid out concisely that NO ONE believed the US/British line on Saddam's non-existent WMDs. When the U.N. inspectors themselves say that there was no evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, I would believe them over any U.S. agency.

[venable]

276. the IWR was before the inspectors made their preliminary conclusions

I'm pretty sure.

[venable]

277. the IWR was before the inspectors made their preliminary conclusions

I'm pretty sure.

[Solon]

279. That is true, sort of...

Nice double post, but the fact is that the Inspectors wouldn't commit, one way or the other, at the time, except to say that the inspections will continue when the U.S. let's them, they were Pulled out, rather than kicked out, after all. They also said that they doubted Saddam had the capability to manufacture any WMDs in any quantity at the time, he simply didn't have the equipment. The inspectors simply said there was no evidence for it, that's the MOST they could say at the time, until the United States actually invaded and found out, for a fact, that Saddam had no WMDs to speak of.

The point is that the United States ALREADY had total air superiority over Iraq, what with the No-Fly zones and all that, and they also, due to economic sanctions, pretty much demilitarized that nation completely. In fact, for over 10 years, Iraq has been under a microscope, pretty much, Saddam couldn't transport one damned truck to a new bunker without that bunker and truck being bombed by the U.S. We have technically been at war with Iraq since the first Gulf War after all.

[venable]

280. I believed Scott Ritter from the get-go

and I don't want to be in the position of seeming to defend the CIA, which I feel is responsible for the architecture and justification for military actions that have overthrown legit governments and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths since the end of WWII.

My point is to do with Edwards being unsure how to vote, and hearing from a professional intelligence gatherer, the person who would have the most raw data, that the WMD were real, and that the threat was imminent.

I didn't believe it, you didn't believe it, but Edwards had a conversation with Tenet that would be, for most people, hard to ignore, the history of the CIA notwithstanding..

[Solon]

281. To be honest, this isn't just limited to Edwards....

To be frank, none of the top 4 candidates are my preferred picks, or even in my top 3 choices, all for different reasons, sabre rattling with Iran, Healthcare stupidity, etc. all sort of strike them from my primary list. Granted, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination because of any of them are the "lesser of two evils" compared to any of the Republican candidates.

And before you ask, yes Kucinich would be the closest to my politics, but again, he would barely make number 4 on list, not even on my top 3 "dream choices", and in the general, on the off-chance that he is nominated, I'd still consider it a vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Skittles]

250. thank you

the past is past? I THINK NOT

[MadHound]

253. You're welcome

People who are willing to excuse the most horrendous of actions due to partisan politics piss me off. To borrow your phrase, I WANT TO KICK THEIR ASS:evilgrin:

[depakid]

208. Much of what a candidate can be expected to do can be inferred

from what they've done in the past.

For this reason alone, the IWR is important- particularly when viewed in context of public statements and other actions and other votes.

[Voltaire99]

212. There! You! Said! It!

Of course, "it" is no more than the banality of your unprincipled politics, which dribbles down into the accumulating wastes of cyberspace like...

Well, like the drool from Reagan's diapers in his last, stinkiest days. He didn't care any more about the consequences of war than do you, even when he still had a brain.

There. I said it. I'm sure you'll get over it. Your kind always does.

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

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

[Up2Late]

248. Amen. I agree completely. eom.

[saracat]

270. I agree absolutely WEL ! You are 100% correct!

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

283. I agree to this extent:

I care about ALL their votes from five years ago. I care about their votes on health, education, welfare, women's rights, civil rights, the environment, the labor market, taxes and the economy. I'm not interested in an anti-war or peace candidate because war is not the be-all and end-all of my concerns. The place where I most want an end to needless suffering and early death is here, right here, in my city, in my country, in America. All the votes matter. Not just one.

[The Magistrate]

284. Well Said, Ma'am! An Excellent Point