OK. This might sink fast, but let's set the record straight about the IWR

[jasmine621]

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

I'll say no more.

[sunonmars]

1. So why is Obama not going off on Kerry about his IWR vote.

[Blarch]

3. Ummm

Kerry isn't running.

[jasmine621]

No, but Biden and Dodd were. Obama never went after them on their vote. nt

[Alexander]

11. I'm sure Obama needed to go after two guys who got 1% each in Iowa.

By that logic, Hillary should be attacking Gravel right now.

[LittleClarkie]

13. And Kerry apologized, and is now working against the war

while Hillary has not said her vote was a mistake.

[jackson_dem]

37. So are Hillary and Edwards but that doesn't stop Obama

[LittleClarkie]

60. Of the three, only Hillary hasn't apologized for her vote

Edwards did, and Kerry did. Hence why Hillary would be questioned on her IWR vote. She still supports it.

(oops, posted it in the wrong place - corrected now)

[jackson_dem]

68. She has done exactly what Obama has done to try to end the war in 2007

[LittleClarkie]

59. Of the three, only Hillary hasn't apologized for her vote

Edwards did, and Kerry did. Hence why Hillary would be questioned on her IWR vote. She still supports it.

[jasmine621]

4. Guess. Same reason other HC-haters ignore this reality.

You would think that HC singlehandedly sold out the Dem party and her vote alone put us in Iraq.

[LittleClarkie]

61. To call someone a "hater"

sounds way too much like what the right wing called anyone who disagreed with Bush. "Why are you a hater? Why do you hate America?"

[MADem]

23. "An inconvenient truth" perhaps?? NT

[Blarch]

2. Clinton (D-NY), Yea

You can't blame her, she didn't know that this resolution authorized military force against Iraq

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

You can see how someone could get confused.

[Seen the light]

5. ...

:rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

9. It's all of that experience, that made her too smart to read the NIE....

Those 35 years or something.

[napi21]

21. Did you listen to the arguments in the Senate back then?

I did. Remember, Shrub was fairly new on the job and maybe you did, but I never though there would EVER be a Prez of the US as bad as he turned out to be. I remember the one argument that struck home with me at the time. The President is going to be negotiating directly with the UN and Saddam. He NEED the power behind his threats so they KNOW they are not idle threats.

I was a buyer for a large Corp. quite a few years ago, and if that salesman didn't KNOW I had the power to sign a PO, I didn't stand a chance at getting his best price or a good deal. He would have felt he was wasting his time. THAT'S why I supported giving Shrub the "authority". He also said he would ONLY use it as a method of last resort.

YES I ralize now that I was WRONG, and had grossly misjudged Shrub. I can't fault those who voted yea back then though. Unfortunately, I would have done the same!

[thunder rising]

27. Now if Hillary would say that..instead she swaaannss and glides.

[thunder rising]

25. I do so love that response from her. HOOOT!!! I was confused. I ask the Repugs and the WH!

[redqueen]

6. And Obama voted to fund it after campaigning saying he wouldn't...

one-issue poltics... I will never understand it.

[sunonmars]

8. His hypocrisy is worse than Hillary's IWR vote

[Blarch]

12. Hypocrisy ?

show me where he said he wouldn't fund the war.

[Blarch]

10. Obama said he wouldn't fund the war ?

where, when ? Link ?

Oh...I get it..more swift boating.

[redqueen]

14. Here's the link

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.




and one with the full quote:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/obama_on_abcs_this_week_with_g.html


OBAMA: And I say so unequivocally, because at a certain point,
we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled,
we're not going to save the ship.



the spin is he only meant he wouldn't vote for THAT funding bill... he's very good with nuance and plausible deniability, I'll give him that.

[FrenchieCat]

16. OBama never said what you are saying. Those that you speak are

Clinton talking points.....being repeated by a supporter of the Co-Sponsor the IWR himself, John Edwards.

Desperate in NH: Fibbing About Obama and Iraq?
Campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire the day before the primary, Senator Hillary Clinton once again pounded Barack Obama for being big on talk and small on deeds. And before a crowd that could barely fill half of a modest-sized gymnasium, she continued to claim that Obama is a disingenuous politician, no noble and inspiring force of change. Using the thin opposition research her campaign operatives have managed to unearth on her rival, she recited what's becoming the campaign's regular litany of Obama's alleged hypocrisies. Saying you oppose the Patriot Act and then voting to extend it—"that's not change," she declared. Saying you're against special interest lobbying and then having a lobbyist co-chair your New Hampshire campaign—"that's not change," she thundered. Saying in a campaign speech that you will not vote to fund the Iraq war and then voting for $300 billion in war financing—"that's not change," she exclaimed. After the event, in an interview with Fox News, Clinton was even sharper. She referred to Obama's (and John Edwards') "hypocrisy," and said, "Senator Obama has changed many of his positions." Voters, she insisted, deserved to know this: "Talk is, as they say, cheap."

Her charges against Obama have generally been weak—standard truth-stretchers for standard political campaigns. But in casting Obama as a phony on the Iraq war, Clinton has veered close to outright lying.

Yesterday, in an interview with CNN, Clinton said:

If someone is going to claim that by their very words they are making change, then if those words say... I'm against the war in Iraq and I'll never vote for funding and then, when they go to the Senate, they vote for 300 billion dollars' worth of funding , I think it's time for people to say, "Wait a minute, let's get real here." There's a big difference between talking and acting, between rhetoric and reality.

Did Obama actually vow, as Clinton said, to never vote for funds for the Iraq war? If he had, he would indeed be a major promise-breaker—and a fraud on a critical issue for Democratic voters. This was a powerful allegation.

I sent an email to a Clinton spokesperson who specializes in opposition research, asking for a citation to back up this charge. He quickly replied with a link for a page on a Clinton campaign website that contains a quote from a speech Obama delivered in November 2003, when he was running for Senate:

Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars , I said no. I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance.
Is it possible to read that statement as a promise never to vote for Iraq war funds? Not by any reasonable interpretation. In fact, during Obama's Senate campaign, he explained his opposition to this particular war funding bill in detail. From a September 29, 2003 Obama press release:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,' Obama said.

Perhaps as an opponent of the Iraq war, Obama could have been expected to vote against funds for the war once he reached the Senate. But he, like Clinton (who now opposes the war) and other Senate Democrats, have continually voted for funds, while attempting (albeit unsuccessfully) to attach conditions and timetables to that funding. Because Clinton cannot attack Obama on the policy—given that they have voted the same—she has accused him of being a hypocrite. But where was the beef?

I sent the Clinton oppo guy a follow-up email:

I looked at the quote . He was clearly speaking about the $87 billion package. But what Sen. Clinton told CNN was that Obama said, "I'll never vote for funding." He doesn't say that in the quote. Was she accurately quoting him?
I received no response.

As Hillary Clinton was leaving Dover, I attempted to put the question to her. She had just finished the interview with Fox and another with a local station. Inside the gym, I was two feet away from her. "Can I ask you one question about Iraq and Senator Obama?" I inquired. She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away.

During her speech to supporters at Dover, Clinton said, that it's important to disseminate information on all the candidates "so voters can make a well-informed decision.... I will do whatever I can to make sure voters have the information they need." But ascertaining that this information is accurate is apparently not on her to-do list.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6786_desperate_in_nh_1.html

Responding to Clinton’s attack on Iraq

IRAQ: Obama Consistently Opposed the Iraq War.
In January of 2005, Obama criticized Condoleezza Rice for not offering a timetable for withdrawal;

in February he criticized the Administration’s policy in Iraq while praising our troops;

in May and June, he called security in Iraq “horrible” and criticized the Administration for linking the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq;

and in October and November, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops, saying that we should “get out as soon as we can.”

Obama called for a phased withdrawal of our troops in November of 2005 and voted for an amendment stating that the US should not “stay in Iraq indefinitely.”

He consistently called for troop withdrawal throughout 2006, and voted for a resolution in June urging the President to begin troop withdrawal during 2006.

Obama spoke out against the surge the same night Bush announced it, and introduced his bill to end the war at the end of January, which would have prohibited the surge and set a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops by the end of March 2008.

That bill became the template for the Democratic caucus’ position.

IRAQ: Obama Has Consistently Opposed A Blank Check for Iraq.

Since Obama came to Washington in January of 2005, every single Senate Democrat has voted for every single Iraq funding bill that has come to the Senate floor until President Bush vetoed a timetable for withdrawal.

After that, Obama voted against funding for the war, stating that “This vote is a choice between validating the same failed policy in Iraq that has cost us so many lives and demanding a new one…We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path. With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly.”

IRAQ: Clinton Continues to Unfairly Truncate Obama’s Quote on Iraq. Below is the full excerpt from the New York Times:

“He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. “In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

“‘But, I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don’t know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

“But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ‘What I don’t think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,’ he said.”
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clintons-mtp-iraq-statements/

[redqueen]

20. I posted the quotes... I've seen the "explanations".

he's always got "explanations".

[thunder rising]

35. If you are doomed to find only evil in this good man ... I pitty you.

[redqueen]

38. Who said "evil"? Little melodramatic there aren'tcha? He's a POLITICIAN.

I'm only trying to point out to those who want to believe he's somehow 100% honest that he's not... none of them are, so stop acting as if that's the case.

[jackson_dem]

47. I don't think she finds him evil. She finds him human. Obama is a politician, not a saint

[jackson_dem]

45. There are always "explanations" with Obama. He is never wrong

Look at the context he made those statements in and you will realize why St. Obama was running so hard to the left at the time. He was for all intents and purposes fighting for his political life in a primary. If he lost he would never advance higher than state senator.

We can conceivably accept Obama's "explanation" on that but his "explanation" for voting to fund the war is total BS. Obama said he did it to support the troops. Then, as Hillary's campaign noted, he voted against funding the war after he began running for president. Plus, his vote was never needed to pass a funding bill. He could have cast a symbolic vote against it to show his "opposition" but he never did--until he began running for president and was under fire from the left flank by John Edwards who was running ads calling on Congress to vote against funding.

[redqueen]

50. Exactly...

You say everything so much better than I do. :P

Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Oh...in your world, a person is not allowed to have an explaination

when people want to take things out of context, hey?

As a John Edwards supporter, you should be the last one to judge other people and what they say. Johnny ain't done nothing but explain all of his inconsistencies. Explain his Hedgefund work and investments please? No, on the other hand, don't. We don't need no stinking "explaination"....do we?

[jackson_dem]

71. Obama never takes responsibility and admits he was wrong. Never. He is like Bush

[TriMetFan]

69. Amen to that.

[cali]

70. Obama has voted for every scrap of legislation mandating an end to the war

in fact, he's voted just like Teddy Kennedy on it. Even those MOST adamently opposed to the war have voted to fund the troops. If you can't see the difference between voting for war and voting to fund the troops- oh well.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Don't have to read it, just have to read this........

The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice

By LINCOLN D. CHAFEE
Published: March 1, 2007
Providence, R.I.

AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. 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. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone” approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.
We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.

It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: “This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.”

Americans are gravely concerned about Iraq, and yearn for leadership to stabilize the situation there and gradually end United States involvement. Calling on presidential hopefuls to justify or recant their vote authorizing the president to take us to war almost misses the point.

The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[jasmine621]

18. As a Senator from NY, I may well have been persuaded to vote yea.

The memory of 9/11 was still pretty fresh. But Hillary's statement at the time of the vote is proof of what her intentions were, and she has been truthful about that. As for the title of the resolution, many titles of bills and resolutions do not accurately reflect legislative intent.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Hillary linking 9/11 to Iraq, hey?

Geeze, where have I heard this before? :eyes:

[Blarch]

30. Bingo was his nameo

More Rove tactics.

Using 9-11 as a excuse for her Iraq war vote.

[Cha]

26. New Yorkers are smarter than hilary..

we begged her to vote NO on the IWR.

And almost a million protesters were in NYC on Feb 15, 2003 when the World Said NO To WAR..including the millions world wide and the nyt and hilary ignored us.

[redqueen]

36. And then they re-elected her. (nt)

[Cha]

67. Duh, redherring.

[Hart2008]

62. Or this from Hart: propose an alternative.

What Hart learned from opposing Reagan, and winning in the court of public opinion, was the need not to just oppose things, but to make counter-proposals:

Apr 3, 2003 | "I don't think they've shown a lot of leadership" on the war in Iraq, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., says of congressional Democrats. "They got caught -- they didn't want to be on the wrong side of the war. And when they voted for it, it tied their hands."

At a forum last Friday at Dartmouth College, Hart -- who ran for president in 1984 and 1988 and who has not ruled out a bid in 2004 -- told the packed house and two overflow rooms of an alternative to President Bush's war resolution that he suggested to Democratic leaders last fall. He is firmly convinced that it would have disarmed Saddam Hussein, it would have prevented war, it would have received the backing of the United Nations, and it would have helped the Democratic Party.

"It would have called for the permanent intrusive occupation of Iraq for the purposes of disarmament," Hart said. The number of United Nations inspectors would be tripled or quadrupled and accompanied by a U.N. force. A nationwide no-fly zone would be enforced, and everything coming in and out of the country would be inspected. "That would have passed the U.N.," Hart asserted.

...

"I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'" Hart says. "If the United States had offered that in the U.N. after Resolution 1441, the Security Council would have bought it. As an alternative to war it would have been very attractive. And it would have completely tied his hands."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart/index.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature

[suston96]

15. Hillary did not vote "to go to war......"

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

......... A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

[Blarch]

17. She voted for this resolution..

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

How the fuck can she claim she didn't vote for Military force against Iraq ?

[suston96]

24. There were conditions for using that military force. Read her words in my post

[MercutioATC]

28. She "trusted" an idiot who had surrounded himself with evil men.

...and she refuses to simply state "I was wrong".

[redqueen]

29. But if she says "I was wrong" then she's a flip flopper...

apparently she thinks the crowd who'll brand you a flip flopper is bigger than the crowd that would like a little more sincerity.

[thunder rising]

32. She could have "an emotional moment" and become born again.

Oh, but she already played that card.

[redqueen]

33. Are you an Obama supporter?

That's a pretty fucking shitty thing to say, you know.

I'm sick of that kinds of bullshit slam.

[thunder rising]

42. You have not seen shitty till (If) she wins the nomination and fires Dean

then you will see shitty.

[redqueen]

46. Yes, I will be very angry with her too, should that happen...

but it's a primary, and I won't trash our candidates.

Peace.

[thunder rising]

51. She WILL FIRE DEAN. And she will destroy his work to consolidate power

and that's not trashing a candidate, that's facing reality.

She WILL do this. She is the queen of the DLC and that is their aganda.

[redqueen]

53. And I have no problem with you saying so...

and she's not my candidate, for that and other reasons...

but I won't smear her or trash her by saying she faked tears or any bullshit like that, that's all.

Peace.

[MercutioATC]

34. So her refusal to admit fault is purely political opportunism?

I expect more from the people I hold in esteem....and I'd like to hold the person I vote for in high esteem.

Sorry, but the "she'd be called a flip-flopper" excuse doesn't hold water with me...or a lot of people.

[redqueen]

41. They all make their own decisions for their own reasons... you know damn well I don't speak for her.

I CAN'T speak for her... all I'm saying is this fucking purity bullshit is just that... bullshit.

[MercutioATC]

54. It's not a purity issue for me...I have plenty of other issues.

...but it bothers me for two reasons:

1) Her "yea" vote could have only been a result of either idiocy or political opportunism.

2) She refuses (for whatever reason) to simply admit she was wrong.


This one vote and her "explanation" of it reveal (to me) at least two of three character traits that I'm very uncomfortable with...

[redqueen]

55. I understand... and I have my own reasons that she's not my #1.

Peace.

[MercutioATC]

56. ...actually, I'm not sniping at her to garner support for another candidate..

...I don't like any of them.

Peace :)

[redqueen]

57. Hehehe...

I'm not doing anything but trying to put out fires... and sometimes maybe it's counterproductive...

I happen to think they're all good candidates... some of us have our favorites and seem to be holding a double-standard, and it drives me batty... I can't seem to help myself.

:crazy:

[MercutioATC]

58. I agree that too much was made of the "cry"

I watched it. She didn't cry...her voice barely broke. Much ado about nothing.

[jackson_dem]

49. Has Obama ever admitted he took a wrong position?

[thunder rising]

31. In other words, here is a loaded gun, unsafed and pointed at the victim. It's not my responsibility

[Hart2008]

40. She voted to give the drunk the car keys and is responsible for the mess.

Delegating the Constitutionally mandated power to declare war was exceedingly bad judgment on her part. She is responsible for the consequences.

Since when do we reward incompetence with a promotion?

Do we have different rules for Hillary because she is a woman or a Clinton?

[redqueen]

52. And FDR interned the Japanese...

this purity stuff is going to kill us...

[Hart2008]

63. Voting for war is a very serious issue. It shows how they handled an awesome power.

Playing politics with the issue of war and peace is despicable.

:puke:

[Barack_America]

19. Wrong. The real story is here.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234

[jasmine621]

39. Same story. nt

[Barack_America]

44. Not even close.

This was the one thing that could have forced Bush to either demonstrate the presence of WMDs or exhaust all diplomacy.

Hillary voted NO.

[Pastiche423]

43. On October 10, 2002 I watched and listened to all of the speeches

It was then that I decided who would lose my vote forever.

Need I say more?

[redqueen]

48. I remember that day... I remember hearing Byrd vote for it...

and Clinton...

and so many others...

but I can't let a republican win... I will vote for her in the GE. I will work my ass off for her if she's the nominee.

And if you're at all familiar with my posts about the Clinton era and triangulation in general... you know that's saying a lot.

Peace.

[Pastiche423]

64. WTF?

Bryd voted for it?

I can tell YOU were not paying attention in the lead up to the vote. Byrd not only did NOT vote for it, he stood, at age 84, all alone on the senate floor for days on end, begging his fellow senators to vote NO!

So forgive me if I do not believe a word you say.

Hillary Clinton voted w/the boys because she was already planning her run for president.

Letting a republic win is too close to voting for Clinton, IMHO. She will never receive one cent, any support and certainly not my vote.

If I wanted to vote for a warmongering consevative, I'd register as a republic.

[FrenchieCat]

66. You don't even have a clue.....

Byrd understood better than most, and certainly better than Clinton. She voted for it.....but 23 other Dems (which was over 1/2 of the Dems in the Senate at the time) voted AGAINST it. She was actually voted with the minority in her party. She knew.

[cali]

73. Small correction:

21 dems voted against it- slightly less than half. One republican voted against it- Chafee and one indie, Jeffords.

[cali]

72. omg

you know so little it's sad. I had no idea. Byrd was the most adamantly against the war Senator along with Leahy. His speech against voting for the war has been printed here hundreds of times. I can't believe any long time poster here would claim Byrd voted for it.