Explain to the rest of the world: How can you vote for a candidate who supported the Iraq War?

[DutchLiberal]

Really, that's all I want to know. Especially after reading another horrible story today about gang-rape in Iraq by Halliburton employees.

Abu Graib, white phosphorus, torture, Blackwater... All consequences of an invasion that is illegal under International Law, which has cost over one million innocent Iraqi citizens their lives. Four million Iraqis are now refugees. Almost (?) 4,000 American men and women dead. Theft of Iraqi oil by Bush and Cheney's corporate mercenaries.

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. She has long supported Bush on the war, even after it was discovered there were no wmd's. She has not apologized for this, nor acknowledged it was a mistake.

Joe Biden supported the war against Iraq from the get-go. He used strong neo-con-like rhetoric that matched Bush's. He said Hussein and his wmd's were a threat to the world. He is now hailed as 'the man with the plan'.

John Edwards voted for the war in Iraq. He has apologized for it and said it was a mistake. Still, we remember him for making statements connecting Hussein to Al Qu'aida and 9/11, a lie that was originally made up by Cheney.

Chris Dodd supported the Iraq War. I have no further information concerning his support.

Two of these candidates are currently in the top 3 in the 'horse race' for the White House.

Why?

[Perry Logan]

1. They were lied to.

In attacking them, you're helping the Bushites to get double mileage from their lie. A child can tell you, this is not good strategy.

[DutchLiberal]

3. No, they voted for the War because they feared their political careers.

And I'm asking why you would vote for somebody who puts his/her career before matters of life and death.

You should keep your own side accountable, instead of turning a blind eye.

[cali]

7. You do understand that

winning the presidency and making a start on repairing the sad shape of the country, are more important than that vote, don't you? I personally can't bring myself to vote in the primary for someone who voted for it, but I'm not going to judge what others decide about it.

[DutchLiberal]

10. The question is: can you trust somebody who voted for the Iraq War in the White House?

Some of the candidates have been beating the war drum with regard to Iran recently. That doesn't seem very promising.

[cali]

27. Actually, the alternative is far, far ,far worse. You can never

wholly trust a politician to begin with. You just have to trust as much as you can, and hope for the best. I have no idea what you're suggesting here, but if, as it sounds, you're actually suggesting that it would be better not to vote in the general if the nominee for the dems is someone who voted for the IWR, that's insane. What's more, anyone listening would know that every single dem running is advocating for direct diplomacy with Iran. And that includes Clinton who voted for K/L and Edwards, Obama and Biden who have all made some harsh comments about Iran. Btw, K/L was not an authorization for war. It was a sense of the senate resolution that specifically spelled out that it was not endorsing or authorizing any military action. Hate the resolution and Clinton's vote, but let's be honest about it.

And as I said, the drum beating for war, is simply false.

[DutchLiberal]

31. My thread is about the primaries. And K/R, is that the vote to name the Iranian National Guard

a terrorist organization? No matter how you want to explain it away: it was wrong and stupid.

[cali]

34. You're not reading. I didn't say K/L wasn't wrong and stupid.

In fact, I said I hated it. I also explained to you that it did not authorize any military action against Iran. Clearly, for anyone actually reading, that's not explaining anything away. Glad to hear that you're only talking about the primaries, and as I said, I've made my decision that I can't vote for anyone who voted for the IWR, but I won't judge or browbeat those who have come to a different conclusion. And I think it's poor form to do so.

[DutchLiberal]

43. I didn't say you didn't say... Well, you get the point.

I know K/R doesn't give authorization for war with Iran... officially! But when Bush strikes Iran because he has to "protect the US from the terrorist organization that is the Iranian National Guard", I also blame HRC.

[Hieronymus]

126. I can vote for Edwards because he apologized and vowed to

withdraw combat troops, unlike Hillary.

[bpeale]

130. DING DING DING ... we have a winner folks!

[Kucinich4America]

44. Actually, what is more important.

Is electing someone who will not make that mistake again, because they didn't make it the first time. Those who voted for the war did so because they "trusted the pResident". If someone EVER trusted George Bush (or his father), I don't trust their judgment, because the Bush Crime Family has an established record of lies and treason going back at least a century.

The "war on terra" is a LIE, just like the "war on drugs". Not coincidentally, both of them brought to you by the exact same bunch of criminals, and each making the problem it was allegedly meant to solve, much worse. Chimp Bush has not stopped terrorism, he has increased it. And those senators who voted for the IWR helped him do so.

[cali]

51. I agree that the war on terror is largely a manufactured

thing. But there are always reasons not to trust politicians. In fact, with few exceptions, it's better not to. However, Kucinich is a non-starter for a host of reasons, some good and some lousy. I don't have to endorse the bad judgment of the dems who voted for it when I vote in my primary, but come next November, I'm damn well gonna take that leap without any hesitation. The alternative is one of the ghastly repukes. No thank you.

[BootinUp]

8. They voted for the IWR

as a strategy to reduce the reason for war. By forcing unfettered inspections it was believed Bush would loose public support for war.

On the other hand voting against it did not guarantee Bush would not attack, but it would reduce the perceived threat to Saddam and reduce the show of unity in forcing the issue.

[DutchLiberal]

11. A vote for the IWR was a vote for War. They knew that.

Or they were smart and experienced enough to know that.

[BootinUp]

15. My argument presents a plausible alternative

and one that fits much better with our parties philosophies.

[cali]

4. I don't buy that for a second. They were warned by

many of their colleagues not to fall for it, and it was common knowledge BEFORE the vote that the intelligence was flawed. Having said that, if someone who voted for it gets the nom, I'll be voting for that person.

[Dr. Strange]

64. That's their defense?

So the campaign slogan is "Vote for me! I was lied to by Bush and I fell for it!"

No thanks.

[bvar22]

108. All of these Democrats were "Lied to", and yet....

these Democrats had the wisdom and courage to see through the "Bush Lies", and the integrity to vote AGAINST the IWR.

The "but they were lied to" excuse is beyond pathetic. :thumbsdown:


The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[DutchLiberal]

112. That picture is very telling.

Good one!

[Radical Activist]

137. You want a President dumb enough to be fooled by George Bush?

Its hows bad judgment. If Democrats want to win we need someone who hasn't eliminated their ability to speak with authority about Iraq by voting for it.

[Rydz777]

2. I don't have to explain. I support Gore - and am still waiting. nt

[DutchLiberal]

5. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like he's planning to run.

[Justyce]

6. And Obama voted to fund it - might as well throw him in that group too. nt

[DutchLiberal]

14. Yes, that's true. But for now, I want to focus on these 4, who voted for the War to begin with.

[cuke]

48. Too bad you don't control the discussion

but it's hypocritical to try to limit the facts if you're so big on the war issue

Obama has supported the war on every funding vote.

[DutchLiberal]

54. Who said I wanted to "control the discussion"?

You're a known 100% Hillary-supporter, so it's only natural you want to attack Obama. Don't let me get into your way...

However, Obama did not vote for IWR, and HRC did. And judging her vote on K/R, she would make the same mistake with Iran.

[cuke]

62. Your question "How can you vote for a candidate who supported the Iraq War?"

Obama supported the Iraq War.

The OP was not about IWR; It was about the Iraq War. My response is true to your OP. Too bad you can't even stick with your OP.

[DutchLiberal]

67. Maybe you should read the post instead of just the headline.

Otherwise, you come of as an ignorant jerk.

[cuke]

81. I did. You criticize Edwards, not for the IWR vote, but for his statements

supporting the war. You also mention Abu Ghraib and other specifics. The OP is not limited to the IWR vote. That's just revisionism

I don't see any reason why the discussion should be limited to only those who voted for IWR.

[DutchLiberal]

85. Again: a lie from you. I criticized all of them for the IWR vote.

The reason to limit it to only those who voted for IWR? It was in my original OP!

(Still not a word about HRC's war-mongering and compliance to Bush, I see... Interesting...)

[cuke]

98. Your words "we remember him for making statements connecting Hussein to Al Qu'aida and 9/11, "

You criticize Edwards for his statements, not just his IWR vote.

But god forbid we criticize Obama or someone else who supported the war but wasn't in COngress at the time of the IWR vote.

And wrt Clinton - I already explained that her position on health care trumps her IWR vote, IMO. Keep pretending I didn't say that

And your OP doesn't limit the discussion to the IWR vote.

[DutchLiberal]

113. "Not just his IWR vote". So you admit I did criticize him for his IWR vote.

That's really all I needed to hear. But:

-if you want to criticize Obama: be my guest. I'm not an Obama-supporter, and even if I were: I'm not gonna stop you.

-why does her position on health care trumps her IWR vote? Is it not true in Clinton's plan, the HMO's and the insurance companies still get the last laugh?

[Dawgs]

30. Bullshit. We're talking about who was against from the beginning.

If everyone thought like Obama we wouldn't be there at all.

[cuke]

63. Bullshit. Read the OP

The question is "How can you vote for a candidate who supported the Iraq War?"

[DutchLiberal]

70. No, that's only the headline.

I find it amusing, by the way, that you so desperately want to attack Obama, yet you make no attempt to tell us why your beloved HRC was so right in voting for IWR (which Obama did not).

[cuke]

82. No, it's the entire OP

The OP is not about IWR. It criticizes dems for statements they made in support of the war.

[DutchLiberal]

88. Now that we have established you can't read... what shall we talk about next?

[cuke]

101. Once your posts are deleted, we will have established

that you can't debate without name calling and other rightwing tactics that are against DU rules

[DutchLiberal]

115. Oh, please, where is this supposed name-calling?

Where are the right-wing tactics? The only one using right-wing tactics, is you: not adressing the question, not talking about the issue, but instead attack the messenger.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Why?

Obama didn't pimp this war at the time that it should have been stopped; before it started. :shrug:

I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear< – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.[br />
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.--Barack Obama, October 26, 2002
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

For one to equate cheerleadering the war, hawking it, co-sponsoring it and advocating for it versus one voting for funding for our soldiers once they were out in the battlefield is looking at things in an irrationally simplistic manner......in particular if they support one who didn't say any of the words quoted above as they so directly came out of Barack Obama's mouth. If Barack would have been President, there would not have been an Iraq war, as opposed to.....

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.--John Edwards, September 12, 2002
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm


My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us." --John Edwards, October 7, 2002
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.

Hardball Interview, John Edwards, in October of 2003, after it was confirmed that there were no WMDs in Iraq
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

The words spoken by Edwards and Obama are the exact opposite of each other. One had excellent judgment, the other had terrible judgment. There is simply no comparison.

[DutchLiberal]

46. Thank you. This information is very valuable.

I wish I could remember where I found Biden's war-mongering remarks about Iraq. Could you help me out?

[FrenchieCat]

69. Let me be clear when I state that there were various degrees of

support for war in Iraq. Some were saying the right words against going to Iraq, but still voted for the resolution, i.e., Biden and Hillary.

Some were advocating going into Iraq very early on, and continued until they realized that it wasn't in their best interest to continue to support the Iraq war, i.e., John Edwards.

IF we must have a candidate who voted for the IWR, please know that I favor the candidates who still spoke the right words even if the vote was wrong, over those who not only voted wrong but were in full throated agreement in advocating the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.

Biden of course lent his name to the BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT which would have authorized the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him....meaning there wouldn't have been an occupation authorized. http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102


Here's Hillary Clinton speaking prior to her vote:
"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."
http://clarkiw.wordpress.com/2002/10/

[FrenchieCat]

9. I agree......

that there should be no reward for those who pimped this war, period, apology or no.

Apologies dated 3 years after-the-fact and prior to throwing ones hat in the ring do nothing for me.

Some want to minimize it by saying that this is just one issue. I say, this issue has crossed over into every part of our politics, economy and ethics.

[BootinUp]

13. My friend

in the interest of pure emotionless debate. Do you think Bush could have invaded without the IWR resolution and expected support after the fact?

[Dhalgren]

32. There is no reason to think that he wouldn't have gotten support from these

same 4 candidates - since they supported the war before, during and after the invasion. There were 15 million people in the streets, many, many people in positions to know were saying to wait, there were no WMDs, but Bush, the Bush-Republicans and the Bush-Democrats were all for war-war-war! No, these 4 democratic candidates have to own who and what they are...

[BootinUp]

35. you misunderstood the question.

which was, could Bush have expected to get support after committing troops sans IWR.

Secondly, I do not agree that any of our candidates "supported war" i.e. favored invasion, with the exception of Edwards.

[Dhalgren]

42. We just disagree on this issue...

[FrenchieCat]

53. The IWR was to be used to "legitimize" Bush's War plans.......

and so it did.

The Bush admin knew that they couldn't get the UN to agree with plans to invade Iraq if only the Bush Admin was proposing it (as opposed to the United States "united").....and so, the Bush administration figured that with the U.S. congress backing a call for war even if the UN voted against it was the way to get their war on.

And it worked, my friend! Bush didn't get the vote that he wanted out of the U.N., but with congress having given him the authority nevertheless, Bush went to war.

Would he have gone without the IWR? Perhaps...but that would have been another hurdle for them to jump over. As it was, the hurdle was cleared by that IWR. Especially considering that there were other resolutions/amendments offered that would have been "less of a blank check".....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[BootinUp]

73. But (a short follow up)

can it be said to legitimize in the absence of findings of WMD by the UN. Public opinion was hinged on multi-lateral support and the WMD issue. How else to defuse it, than to force unfettered access so the UN could give an all clear report?

A review of the leadup shows that it was the obfuscation of intelligence that allowed Bush to build support for the war at home.

oh well I don't think I am the only person that feels this way, just in the minority.

[FrenchieCat]

90. That's what the Levin amendment was for.......

and who voted against that one?

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice
By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE
Published: March 1, 2007

There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html

[BootinUp]

105. I think the honest question there

is whether it is believed that Saddam would have complied to the extent he did with that resolution, since the UN had failed to force his hand already.

[Fresh_Start]

12. I was against Iraq and even Afghanistan

but I'm a parent and I understand excessive precaution because its a tendency I have as a parent.

Voting for Iraq even though there were questions was an 'excessive precaution'.
What if the administration had been correct and Iraq was in fact a threat to the USA - either biological weapons or suitcase bombs.
I could see voting to protect the country because the country was already fragile after 9/11.

So stop whining about 2002-2003 unless you have never in your life made a bad decision.

[DutchLiberal]

18. I wouldn't call mourning over 1 million dead innocent people "whining".

Apparently, you are insensitive enough to do so. Apparently, you don't care enough about life and death, war and peace to discuss this issue. Your comparison couldn't be more wrong. No bad decision I ever made resulted in the deaths of more than a million people, a country bombed to pieces and a civil war.

[Fresh_Start]

22. Your thread isn't mourning anything

just because you list the deaths doesn't mean you're mourning them.
Your thread is political browbeating - not mourning.

[DutchLiberal]

26. Wow.

Just wow. Words fail me for so much jerkiness.

[Fresh_Start]

28. reread your own posts. you are no stranger to utmost jerkiness

in fact, I'd say you're a pro.

[DutchLiberal]

33. I'm a jerk for thinking one million innocent deaths are important to discuss?

:crazy: Whatever.

[Dawgs]

36. Thanks DutchLiberal.

Why some try to blow off the deaths of so many innocent as meaningless is really scary. Especially on a board like this one.

[cuke]

56. No, youre' a jerk for ignoring the millions of sick people

who are suffering and dying because they have no health insurance.

MillionS (see the plural?) have no insurance, and I'm supposed to be more concerned with Iraqis?

18,000 Americans die every year, year after year, because they have no insurance, and you think I should place their (my) interests behind the Iraqis?

Whatever

[DutchLiberal]

58. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? And why are you changing the subject?

Start a thread about health care if you want to debate health care.

Oh, and don't put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say or even imply I want to "ignore millions of sick people"?

If I were an American, I would support Kucinich, the only candidate with a universal single-payer not-for-profit health care plan.

[cuke]

68. You made them mutually exclusive, not me

Your OP clearly argues that support for the Iraq War is incompatible with voting for them NO MATTER WHAT their positions are on the other issues.

"And why are you changing the subject?"

I'm not changing the subject. You asked why anyone should vote for someone who supported the Iraq War. My answer is "Because of health care"

"Where did I ever say or even imply I want to "ignore millions of sick people"?"

Of course you didn't say that. You didn't say ANYTHING about it. That's what "ignoring" means.

[DutchLiberal]

72. No, I did not say that. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

The rest of your drivel doesn't even make any sense. You're sure you're on the right board?

[cuke]

84. You certainly did imply it

Just read the question you asked

[DutchLiberal]

89. No, I did not. And yes, I recommend you actually read the question I asked.

[griffi94]

16. nobody gets it right all the time

i'm voting for edwards. i wish he hadn't voted for the war, but then again i wish the dems would quit caving on
cutting off funding for the war. and i wish i had a pony.

[DutchLiberal]

20. I guess good judgement isn't required for presidents anymore.

Wow, eight years of Bush has really lowered the bar.

[Dawgs]

17. That's a question I've been asking for months; especially concerning Edwards.

I like the guy, but he not only voted, but pushed for this war.

BTW, funding troops is not the same as supporting the war.

[DutchLiberal]

21. However, funding the troops is what keeps the war going.

[Dawgs]

37. If it was up to Obama and Kucinich there would have never been a war.

And voting for it to support the troops is not the same as supporting the war.

[DutchLiberal]

50. But when Obama was recently asked what he had done if he had been in the position

to vote for or against the war, he answered he did not know what he would have done.

Also, you realize "supporting the troops" is a catch phrase from Bush to continue the illegal occupation of Iraq, right?

[Dawgs]

110. I don't give a shit what Bush says, and you seem to have left Obama's reasoning for his comment.

[DutchLiberal]

116. Huh? It's not about what Bush says, it's about "supporting the troops" being

a disguise for continuing an illegal occupation, and Obama is helping to continue it by voting to fund the war.

[GreenArrow]

52. falling into a trap

is usually an easier prospect than getting out of one. This was a trap that was perfectly visible from the inception, and the country walked into it willingly.

[unpossibles]

19. For one thing, they were lied to, although to me that is not as acceptable

I mean, many of us weren't fooled by it, and it's their job to be on top of things.

Another thing though, is that the timing of it was intentional by Bush & Cheney, according to the book Hubris which makes sense. Sure, that means they voted the way they did because of politics, but... come on. Again, not the best excuse but it's human and understandable.

The best answer for me is that NONE of the candidates matches me perfectly. Kucinich comes far closest, but I disagree with his stance on handguns, or at least the severity and impossibility of it.

But no one in elected office truly represents me. Does that mean I should never vote? I personally do not see the problem with stating that sometimes voting for the lesser of two "evils" is a really good thing, as opposed to abstaining from voting because of it. Obviously, that is about the general election, and not the primary, but it still sort of applies. Back to what I was saying about not being represented perfectly by anyone, I am going to always choose the person who I feel either comes closest or at the very least, will oppress people the least even if we disagree on issues.

Bottom line: yes, the war votes sucked, but don't forget they were planned that way, and at the time many people (most, based on polls) truly did not know what the truth was regarding Iraq. But when it comes to the GE, I'd rather vote for a relatively conservative "war monger" in the Democratic party over a religious nutjob in the Republican party who wants to destroy the first amendment any day. Hell, even if that other person is an anti-war nutjob like Ron Paul. Know why? Because his other stances make him far less desirable than anyone on the left. Anyone.

I would have thought that was obvious, especially after the 2000 selection, but I guess I was wrong.

[DutchLiberal]

24. Anybody paying attention did know or could have known the truth about Iraq.

Why did nobody listen to Hans Blix? Why did some of these candidates buy into the Iraq-9/11 connection? Even Tony Blair's government was smart enough never to use that 'justification', because it so obviously was bullshit.

[GreenArrow]

57. anbody paying attention

did know the truth about Iraq.

[indepat]

66. No one yet has given a good reason to vote for any Dem who voted for the IWR and I hope to God our

only choice will not be to vote for a Dem who voted for the IWR or any 'puke candidate now on the horizon for that would be a lose-lose proposition imo. That said and even in a lose-lose situation, any dem will be better than any 'puke from the standpoint of fiscal integrity and tax fairness, the rule of law, the economy, the jobs market, the value of the dollar, social justice, equal protection under the law, the return to some semblance of paying lip-service to the Constitution, international law, international goodwill, world peace, the environment, judicial and executive nominations et al. But the damage already done by junior's legions may well be to great for humpty-dumpty to ever be put back together.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. I supported Kerry after he was nominated

And I have no doubt that he would have made a pretty darn good President if he won. Actually I think only John Edwards overtly supported the actual decision to invade Iraq when we did, which by some would define the ultimate real bottom line for who really "supported this war". I don't think that any of our current candidates would have started that war on their own (Lieberman would have though).

Simple answer is; who can at this point in time make a good candidate and/or good President is not a two dimensional question to answer. I do give significant real points to Kucinich and Obama for the stands that they took then. But right now it is Biden, for example, who is making the strongest case for peace regarding Iran. You simply have to look at the whole picture which has a number of important variables.

I have written this elsewhere, I think the left has not been able to field the strongest candidates this time around. I think Clark, Gore or Feingold would have been stronger, and they spoke out against Bush's Iraq invasion. There are many Democratic voters, myself included, who think having more real world experience than one or less terms in the Senate (actually less for both Obama and Edwards since Edwards devoted so much of his energy toward seeking the Presidency while he was in office) is a valuable quality for a Presidential candidate to possess.

Feingold would have made a stronger candidate from the left. Unlike Kerry, Edwards, and Dean in 2004, Kucinich could not even make a serious run to win his own State Primary. That feeds into thinking that he simply is not viable.

[indepat]

45. We the people are fucked but really, has there ever been a more deserving lot to be fucked as a

people, considering the number who supported junior's little war from the get go, the number who have shilled for his every move? Anyone who did not realize this would be an illegal war from the get go, triggering war crimes as enunciated by Justice Jackson at Nuremberg, is either brain-dead or ignorant. Gore and Clark are our only possible salvation imo, but that seems off the table.

[Bitwit1234]

25. The question is how can anyone vote for someone who wants to bomb IRAN

BUT!!!!!!!OBAMA HAS YET TO EXPLAIN TO US WHY HE SKIPPED SO MANY VOTES. WAS HE UNABLE TO READ THE BILLS. WAS HE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY MEANT. WHY WHY WHY DID HE SKIP SUCH IMPORTANT
BILLS, THOSE TO HELP OUR SERVICE MEN, THOSE TO HELP DESERVING STUDENTS, AND 140 MORE...THE LESS THAN ALL KNOWING PEOPLE WHO KEEP POSTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR WHY DON'T THEY ASK OBAMA WHY HE WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO GET ELECTED IN 2004 TOLD THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE REPORTER IN AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW THAT HE WOULD NOT HESITATED TO !!!!!GET THIS!!!! DRUM ROLL!!!! DAH DAH DAH DAH DAH......BOMB IRAN....WITH MISSILES YET.

So he should just shut the hell up about asking Hillary Clinton why she along with 96 other senators voted to give bush permission to hunt for WMD in Iraq. At least she did not give him permission to bomb Iraq and she has yet to give him permission or even say she wants to bomb Iran...But Obama has...exlain that please. You can't you have to post crap about Hillary you can't tell the truth about Obama.

[DutchLiberal]

29. But it was HRC who voted to label Iran's National Guard a 'terrorist organization'.

A reason for Bush to bomb Iran. Like the IWR was a reason to bomb Iraq.

[wyldwolf]

39. and Obama who first suggested it.

:)

[DutchLiberal]

59. Did Obama vote for K/R, yes or no?

[wyldwolf]

71. nope, he felt so strongly about it he skipped out on the vote

[DutchLiberal]

74. So, Obama did not vote for it, but HRC did.

:)

[cali]

40. My, my. you really do need some educating.

The IWR was authorization for the president to use military force. K/L had NO force of law whatsofuckingever. Do you even know what a sense of the senate resolution is? And yeah, I don't like it one little bit that it designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (not National) as a terrorist organization, and I don't like it that JE and Obama both made comments supporting that designation, but that's no reason for you or anyone else to mischaracterize it. Furthermore, the admin doesn't need jackshit from the Congress to bomb Iran or... the Netherlands for that matter. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and the WPR give him 60 days free reign to do that.

[DutchLiberal]

61. You can drop the insulting condescending tone. Like I said: I know the difference

between IWR and K/R.

But if you can't see K/R will be used bu Bush as a legitimization for war with Iran, you haven't been paying attention.

[cali]

95. then stop conflating them intentionallly.

because that sucks even more. And you might consider stopping the judgmental shit too. As for paying attention, I know damn well that K/L won't make the slightest difference as to what bushco does or doesn't do. He's fucking insane. If you haven't figured that out by now, you really haven't been paying attention.

[DutchLiberal]

118. You're the one who is judgmental, by saying I need "some educating".

It's not about conflating them intentionally. I'm merely pointing out K/R can be used as a legitimization for Bush to attack Iran, since their National Guard is now branded a 'terrorist organization'.

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Honestly

What that would be about if it happened would be Public Relations and nothing else. Just like Bush kept pulling out every fake rational he could find for attacking Iraq, and rotated them when he needed to, yes he would pull out K/L. But that would be to buttress his position politically in the aftermath of a decision to attack Iran. It would not influence his decision as to whether or not to attack Iran. Certainly Hillary Clinton's vote would not be a meaningful factor. It is the entire public climate that may have an effect on Bush's decision, not his being able to twist the literal intent of the wording of a non binding Senate resolution. It is whether Democrats confront Bush over his failure to pursue meaningful diplomacy with Iran or not, and whether Democrats buy in to a sense of urgency that Iran must be militarily stopped NOW from doing whatever the neocons claim Iran is doing.

Personally I think Clinton's vote was a mistake, but it probably advanced the cause of peace with Iran much more than it hurt it because of the fact that it injected Iran into the Presidential race as a campaign issue, since all of the candidates other than Clinton realized they could beat up on her over it. Prior to that point our Presidential candidates, with Kucinich being the most notable exception, were tip toe dancing around the question of Iran, wanting to seem both tough and anti-war at the same time. More often than not almost all of them came down on the side of sounding tough.

I think it is bullshit to claim that Clinton wants a war with Iran. I think she made a political calulation regarding Iran that snapped back to bite her. Almost all of the Democratic candidates had been doing the same thing but the rest of the ones in the Senate were clever enough not to attach their names to a Senate resolution sponsored by Lieberaman, that was a huge turn off to many Democratic primary voters who didn't give half a damn about the rhetoric toward Iran prior to then.

What would have happened had Clinton voted the other way? Instead of passing by 76 to 22 it would have passed by 75 to 23. Same difference in terms of how Bush could have used that vote after the fact, but instead of Iran suddenly erupting into a huge topic of debate, because of the primaries, it would have been forgotten in a few days by most since no one could have gained any political advantage by forcing pulic attention to it. There is a reason why Obama, Edwards, and Dodd all made prior political moves to call out Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. You can call it simply politics or you can say it was a principled position to influence Iran away from a certain course of action through the use of "sticks" in diplomacy. The policy that John Edwards advocates toward Iran for example is to enter into diplomatic negotiations with them; using a mixture of sticks and carrots. Prior to the political usefulness of the K/L vote fall out, most of the Democratic candidates agreed that designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization was one of those "sticks" that everyone kept talking about.

In fact a majority of Democratic Senators, those who gained no political advantage in the primaries by pleasing left of center Democratic primary voters, voted for Kyle-Lieberman. And yeah, I think they were wrong to do so, probably. Why do I say probably? Because there were some serious back room negotiations on the final version of that amendment.

The original version came much closer to actually providing Senate backing for Bush's ability to attack Iran whenever he wanted to. Which would have been worse? The mostly nuetered K/L Amendment passing by 76 to 22 or a much more hawkish version passing by something like 59 to 39? Because that may have been the actual real choice without a back room deal. I am only speculating I admit, but not wildly so. We do know that there were last minute negotiations on the final wording, we do know that the final wording was much clearer about not authorizing attacks inside of Iran, and we do know that Hillary Clinton at least claims she would have opposed the origninal version and that she was involved in those closed door negotiations.

We also know that the entire Democratic Senate leadership...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_leadership

...ultimately voted in favor of the revised K/L Amendment, without exception.

Harry Reid, Majority Leader; Aye
Dick Durbin, Majority Whip; Aye
Patty Murray, Conference Secratary; Aye
Chuck Shumer, Vice-Chairman of the Conference/DSCC Chairperson; Aye
Debbie Stabenow, Steering Committee Chairperson; Aye
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position

That on the surface is consistent with a deal having been struck. Durbin in particular is no foreign policy hawk.

In the backlash to her K/L vote Hillary Clinton issued a number of statements and took a number of acts. She co-sponsored the Webb Amendment that would have forced Bush to return to the Senate for specific authority to attack Iran, and she was one of a number of those Democratic Senators who had voted for K/L who signed a Webb written letter to the White House clarifying that that amendment was not intended to support use of military action against Iran. She also issued clear statements attacking Bush for not engaging in real "all issues subject to negotiations" diplomacy with Iran. In short she negated most of the political milage Bush could have hoped to squeeze out of her vote should he later attack Iran. I didn't say all, I said most, and I think that is an honest appraisal.

Overall, probably at her own expence, factoring in all that has followed, the cause of Peace with Iran has been furthered more by Hillary having voted Yea as the 76th vote in favor of the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment rather than Nay as the 23rd vote against it.

[DutchLiberal]

119. Thank you. Now that was a real insightful contribution to this thread.

There ought to be more like this.

[ChiciB1]

38. I Talked About This In Another Post... My Take Is This... I Don't Think

these corrupt war mongers would have given a rat's ASS if ANYONE voted for it.... THEY WOULD HAVE gone there ANYWAY!

Having seen what has happened these past 7 years, they don't even CARE what they do, who they do it to, or IF they are even breaking any law! They are a LAW unto themselves and if you think otherwise, you've been MIA for quite some time.

And don't ask me if I REALLY believe what I just said, just KNOW that I really do!!

[DutchLiberal]

65. Yes, I believe all that is true.

But that's not the answer to my question. Four candidates did support an illegal war. Four candidates were either putting their careers before peace, or they had such bad judgment to trust George Bush.

[cuke]

47. 18,000 people die EVERY YEAR because they lack health insurance

but I guess I'm supposed to just ignore that fact because IWR is the only thing that matters.

IMO, single issue voters should lose the right to vote

[DutchLiberal]

75. I did not say that.

Oh, now I remember, you're the Hillbot who's always putting words in other people's mouths.

[Whisp]

102. and you kill some brain cells every time you hit 'post'

[Beaverhausen]

49. Because what's done is done. We need to bring our troops home as soon as possible

and we each will vote for the one we think has the best chance of doing that.

Vote for who you want. That's what is great about this country.

[DutchLiberal]

78. "What's done is done?"

Tell that to the terrorists, whose appeal and numbers have grown from the Iraq War. No need to attack us, boys, because what's done is done...

[Beaverhausen]

93. The war wasn't the fault of anyone but Bush and the neocons

sorry- I'm not budging. I support the candidate I think has the best chance to turn things around in Iraq, here, and the rest of the world.

If you don't like it, fine. Good luck to your candidate.

[DutchLiberal]

120. And the Democrats who supported and -worse!- advocated the War are complicit.

[FrenchieCat]

83. "because what's done is done." ?????? How neato, and

What a convenient conclusion for person sporting the Edwards avatar.

For that matter why bother with the justice system at all? Since the crime has already been committed by the time one is arrested for their commission. Guess that those assisting in the commission of a crime should get the reward posted (or should be made head sheriff, hey?) :shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

94. Because the war can't be blamed on anyone but Bush

We have to get rid of him and the neocons once and for all. I chose the candidate I think will do the best job. You chose someone else. May the best candidate win.

[FrenchieCat]

100. Maybe you can't blame the war on Bush.......

but I believe that even Edwards believes he was in some way culpable, hence his "I made a mistake" OpEd three years after the fact.

We are discussing judgment and how some made crucial decisions under political duress, in case you didn't notice. I don't just look at the leaders who led in the wrong direction, I also look at those who would call themselves leaders and what path they followed when they arrived at a crossroad not so very long ago.

[Beaverhausen]

114. No, I do blame the war on Bush

And I have looked at all the issues and decided Edwards is the candidate I support. Your mileage obviously varies. :hi:

[ellisonz]

103. Ahh...revisionist history!

[Perry Logan]

55. "Butt out, rest of the world."

[DutchLiberal]

79. Hillary-supporters can never really defend their candidate, now can they?

They always have to resort to answer-evading jerky remarks.

[Beacool]

60. Explain to the world how you won't nominate

the one candidate who most people overseas hope wins the US presidency in 2008: Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons are very well respected abroad and are the most popular US presidential couple since the Kennedys. Travel a little and you'll see what I mean. If not, read it online.

[inthebrain]

77. Depends

If you want to talk about Welfare, Free Trade and the WTO you may get a different response.

I've traveled and met people from lots of different backgrounds. They may respepect them more than Bush but a lot of folks have a hard time wropping their minds around Clinton's "Welfare as we know it".

A lot of people actually value their safety nets. Most of them would riot in the street if they ever had politician remotely consider tearing them down.

[DutchLiberal]

80. Why don't you just answer the question instead of talking silly?

So you're saying Americans should vote for whomever other countries want to be the president? :crazy:

[Beacool]

86. Talking silly?????

Aren't you the one who started a post about explaining to the world how we voted for someone who "supported" the war??????? Please.....

[DutchLiberal]

91. Erm... no. I asked you to explain to us why you would vote for somebody who supported the war.

It's funny only the Hillbots in this thread have trouble reading what the OP states.

[FrenchieCat]

96. That is an inaccurate statement......

There are others who have posted to this thread without answering the question and are clearly not supporting Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3817991&mesg_id=3818471

[DutchLiberal]

121. Yes, but at least they're not deliberately turning my words in my OP around,

or put words in my mouth.

[NMMNG]

76. I'm not.

:shrug:

[Catchawave]

87. I support John Edwards, and you can't stop me :)

:hi:

[DutchLiberal]

92. Who said I wanted? I'm asking you a question. Too painful to answer?

Or just impossible to defend?

[cali]

97. man, you really are full of it. n/t

[DutchLiberal]

122. How eloquent of you.

[Catchawave]

99. The IWR doesn't bother me. Should it?

Of course I'm anti-war, but I blame BushCo for that. I've been to two protests, and you?

There's so much more going for Edwards and other issues that are important to me in the NOW. I'm quite excited to be supporting him. He's Hot, too :D

[Whisp]

106. are you not at all concerned that Edwards could again make

such a horrendous blunder that involves so much death and suffering?
He proved then that he was not able to lead properly, but followed blindly the weak excuses and obvious lies the Bush administration put forth. Millions of people around the globe were smarter and better informed than Edwards - I'd rather have one of them in charge. Pick a name out of a hat and I'd feel safer/better.

So he has apoligized, but did he explain why he was wrong - did he explain what made him decide to change his mind? Did he give an impression of a sincere apology and show the REMORSE he should after this horrible error in judgement - or was he just karaoking to Brenda Lee's song: I'm sorry, so sorry, please accept my apologyyyyyy.

[Catchawave]

111. I trust he "learned" from that mistake, and was strongly

against kyl-lieberman. Who voted for it? Who didn't show up? Edwards publically commended those who voted against it.

I trust John Edwards.

[DutchLiberal]

123. I think it should. I think it shows really bad judgment. And he was *very* pro-war.

[Beacool]

109. You wanted me to expand on the subject? Well here it is:

Instead of blaming the Democrats, why don't you put the blame squarely where it belongs? Mainly with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Furthermore, if you think that a senator from NY could have gotten away with voting "no" on this resolution just a few months after 9/11, then you're sadly mistaken, they would have had to pay a high price.

Some of us lived through that horrible day, we didn't just watch it on TV. Some of us were in the North Tower coming out of the PATH train when the first plane had already hit the bldg. Some of us saw too many people jump to their death in front of our eyes to ever forget it. Finally, some of us thought that we were going to die when the second plane crashed into the South Tower right across the street from where we were standing, while debris flew in every direction. My town of Hoboken (on the edge of the Hudson river looking into midtown Manhattan), lost more people that day than any other town in NJ.

Get it???? New Yorkers were not for the war in Iraq, but neither were Hillary and Schumer. They were for the use of force as a last resort. So, Obama opposed it from the IL state legislature?. Pardon me, but who gives a shit!!!

[Catchawave]

117. Nicely stated. Some of these anti-war zealots sometimes forget

Who was the Decider after that, who failed miserably to find OBL after the U.S. gave him almost 100% support.

NOBODY was for a war, but the Bush administration certainly mentioned mushroom clouds and vials of anthrax for a reason.....and cooked intelligence with links to Iraq.

[DutchLiberal]

125. "Anti-war zealots"? Wow.

You might want to check out Bill O'Reilly's forum.

[Catchawave]

128. No need to, I get all the O'Reilly talking points here

:evilgrin:

Stop attacking people because they support someone you don't like. Geeesh.

[DutchLiberal]

131. Stop pretending I attack people because they support somebody I don't like.

It's childish. "Anti-war zealots" is Bill O'-rhetoric. Admit it.

[DutchLiberal]

124. Well, here is my answer:

Instead of blaming the Democrats, why don't you put the blame squarely where it belongs? Mainly with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Who says I don't blame the Bush-administration? It's obvious the Bush-administration is to blame. However, HRC/Biden/Edwards/Dodd-supporters almost always use that as a tool for not criticizing the Democrats that enabled the Bush-administration by cheer-leading the war. Turning a blind eye to our own when it comes to disastrous decisions is something the right does, not us.

Furthermore, if you think that a senator from NY could have gotten away with voting "no" on this resolution just a few months after 9/11, then you're sadly mistaken, they would have had to pay a high price.

That's what I said: she put her career before a matter of war and peace; life and death.

And that last rant: using 9/11 to justify the Iraq War??? Seriously?

[Beacool]

133. It is not a rant and, for the record, I despise the war.

But I'm sick and tired of people throwing the Iraq resolution vote in Hillary's face and those of the other senators from the other affected states (NJ, PA & CT). Hindsight is 20/20 and neither Hillary nor most of the other Democrats were jumping over a cliff to start a war with Iraq. Damn Bush and his triumvirate of evil (Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rove), THEY were the ones who didn't even wait 5 months after the vote to decide to invade Iraq despite world opposition. Instead of flogging fellow Democrats, why don't you concentrate on the real enemy: the Repugs and particualrly the neocons and the rest of the right wing of their party.

[killbotfactory]

104. I don't know

But then, people have different values than I do. I don't think an apology goes far enough considering the horrible consequences. Especially since they were easily foreseen by dumb asses like me. It seems like senators who trumpet their experience in foreign relations would have had a heads up on this nightmarish fiasco, and if really they aren't that stupid then they were supporting it out of political expediency.

[Onlooker]

127. For the same reason I could see voting for a candidate who panders to homophobes

Obama never had to vote as a Senator, since he wasn't one, but he did have a choice when it came to campaigning with a known homophobe. He chose to do it. Like all leading politicians he panders. In the primary, I'll support Kucinich, but I don't think Hillary is any worse than Obama to lead our country.

[LSdemocrat]

129. Honestly, I'm just not an issue-based voter

I prefer to look at a candidates' previous records in office in terms of how they make decisions, how they get things done, what motivates them, who do they consult closely with, and what were their results instead of looking at some candidate scorecard or current proposals/speeches.

Certainly voting for the IWR is a big negative, but, to me, it's not an insurmountable one.

[JNelson6563]

132. In 2004 we had to cast those votes

Kerry and Edwards both voted for the IWR. They were our candidates and we either supported them in the hopes of ousting Bush or face the consequences.

This is why it is not so incredibly hard to consider voting for someone who wrongly cast such a vote, we've already done so.

I don't get why that is so very hard to understand.

Julie

[blm]

134. Voting for IWR and supporting Bush's ultimate DECISION to invade are two different matters

Because two months of weapon inspections were proving force was NOT NEEDED.

Any Democrat who believed their vote was to get weapon inspectors into Iraq also needed to step up and oppose Bush for making a decision that went COUNTER to the weapon inspectors' findings.

[ClarkUSA]

135. That's exactly why I and many others here support Obama

Good post, Dutch Liberal. It's a question I've often asked myself.

[Samantha]

136. Your question is so legitimate

It's the same question I have been asking for months, if not years. To date, I have received no acceptable response. To those who say the candidates who supported that resolution were lied to, I respond if I who know nothing knew not to trust Bush* and would not have voted for that resolution, I certainly expect anyone I choose to "lead" me to know more than I.

I do not intend to vote for anyone who signed that resolution, and I have said that since the resolution was introduced to the public. I intend to stand by statement. Many Democrats will put aside their initial anger over that resolution, however, fall in line and support whomever the DLC puts in front of us.