Anybody that voted for the war in Iraq AND still supported it in 2004

[madmunchie]

should not be President PERIOD.

When looking at the ever growing field of possible candidates for President in 08', this will be my criteria for my 1st round of eliminations. Any political "insider" that didn't know what I, a Washington "outsider" knew, isn't either, wise enough, astute enough, intelligent enough, or thoughtful enough. In addition these people are not in a place where I am morally, and for that I will condemn them right out of the possibility of sitting in the WH and being representative of me.

When I see the ever growing list of possible candidates, I see the list literally polluted with name of politicians who still supported going into Iraq as late as 04" and some as late as 05". Going back to the initial vote, authorizing dimwit to go to war, was their first big HUGE error. Back then I even knew that going to Iraq was opening a Pandora's Box. ME, a lowly citizen wo a college degree, no political backround, no inside knowledge NOTHING!! How come I knew that Iraq was no threat? How come I knew that going into Iraq was opening a Pandora's box? If lowly me knew this, then the very least I would expect is that the Politicians in Washington, with all of their inside information, would know the same. So, IF they knew this, why would they have given dimwit their approval to do, what the Neocons have been planning and wanting to do for over a decade???? Why would they vote to authorize the use of force, thus killing many innocent people for no good cause???? I know, I know, they didn't know that Bush would actually do it. Well, that is pretty thin, when you consider the FACTS.

It is like giving a gun to a mentally unstable person who is obsessed with killing somebody, while they are in the same room together.

The climate of the country was that of everybody shell shocked and walking on eggshells. For that reason, although difficult, I will let that go IF and only if they rose up and took back their approval of what Bush did with that authorization BEFORE the 2004 election. Anybody who still stood by their vote, after the thousands of innocent Iraqi's had been killed, after thousands of troops casualties, after the bungling, after the evidence that there was no "imminent" threat, is either lacking in morality, lacking in common sense, "IN" with the Neocons, or just too ambitious to let thousands of innocent lives deter them from hurting their careers.

I see people on this board very intolerant of people that voted for Bush, yet support a Democrat that supported Bush's policies in Iraq up until maybe a year ago. I don't understand that. I don't understand a civilian who really has no inside knowledge on what is going on in Washington being held to a higher level of accountability than our elected officials who do have the inside information and knowledge of what is going on. I find that rather hypocritical.

Iraq is not one issue, Iraq is many issues: Human rights, Religious rights, National Rights. Our leaders being held responsible for their actions, Illegal spying, Prisoner abuse, how do we determine who is a prisoner and what rights they have, economics, where is all of the money that is disappearing faster than we can send it over to Iraq? Where is the money going since the infrastructure isn't being rebuilt too quickly and basic services aren't being restored, What companies are over there working and how much in profits are they pulling in, how is the media reporting the war in Iraq and how much freedom are they allowed in their jobs?

These are some of the issues surrounding Iraq. These are the issues that questions should have been asked before 2004'.

Coming around NOW and saying that they would change their vote is just a political move and anybody who can't see that is being very shortsighted. When so many of us knew the truth back in 02' about Iraq, when many of US LOWLY SOULS, knew the truth, WHY oh WHY would we even consider voting for a possible world leader that didn't know or didn't care?

[blm]

1. You aren't factoring in that there was no change that could be made in ANY

practical strategy UNTIL the Iraqi people had their first vote in Jan 2005.

By the time they had THREE votes in Dec 2005, and months later were STILL unable to put up an EFFECTIVE unity government because of civil war (thanks to Bush's strategic blunders) THEN there was no excuse to vote for anything BUT a thoughtful and timely withdrawal plan.

The IWR did not give Bush unfettered war powers as the media led people to believe and a SECOND vote is in order to authorize interfering in a civil war in Iraq as it is in now. Even GOP Sen. John Warner says a second resolution should be voted on.

THAT should be our focus now to make it happen.

See this thread from yesterday:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1953453&mesg_id=1953453

[madmunchie]

3. I am saying that #1 giving W the authority to go into Iraq was a huge

mistake #2 an politician still supporting their vote by 2004' doesn't deserve a vote to be POTUS

There is no excuse for that type of ignorance. I knew, many knew that Iraq was a disaster from day 1, what excuses the lack in judgment that many politicians had for supporting this war? You can try to explain the "details" in the events that followed and what event changed the outcome of the war, my argument is simple, we should NEVER have gone in PERIOD, there was no good reason to go into Iraq. This is what I will use to determine how much credibility and qualifications a potential candidate has. It is really simple and straightforward. Very truth telling.

Believe it or not, there are Democratics that believe the same thing as I believe. I think that these Democrats are the cream of the crop. They knew, as I knew what a huge historical tragedy this would be. That is who I want in the WH, somebody with that kind of foresight and leadership gift.

[blm]

7. Bush HAD the authority to enter Iraq legally via the original 1991 UN res

What so many of you and the media ignore is that the Dems were ABLE to negotiate Iran and Syria OFF the table as Bush wanted in the IWR and stressed the UN res guidelines that put weapon inspectors in and stepped up diplomatic efforts.

Unfortunately, the media and many on the left joined with the RW to spin the IWR into a blank check that had no guidelines in it for Bush to assess Iraq as a real threat to our national security. Thus - Bush RUSHED TO WAR despite the evidence the guidelines were helping to prove military action was NOT NEEDED.

It was only last month when Alberto Gonzalez testified under oath and admitted that the IWR did NOT grant Bush war powers. Where was the media on that admittance? They ignored it, because they HELPED the WH spin the IWR into a war authorization act.

[htuttle]

14. Well, no. The 1991 UN resolution did NOT give him the right to re-invade

According to the terms of the peace deal at the end of the first Gulf war, the Security Council would have had to vote again in favor of the use of force. Like the IWR, the 1991 UN resolution was NOT a blank check either.

It was a patently illegal war of aggression as far as the UN goes. They haven't done anything about it, since face it, we have a lot of nukes (and have the UN in a headlock, for the most part).

So, Bush didn't have legal authority to invade via the UN, nor did he have legal authority to invade via the IWR. Like so many other things he has done, it was just illegal. And so far, he has gotten away with it entirely.

[TahitiNut]

16. It's amazing to me this still needs to be explained.

:eyes: It. Was. A. War. Crime.

[blm]

26. It was illegal and relied solely on lies, but my point is that it was

determined by British and American legal experts that Bush could go in to ENFORCE the UN res sand had been ince 1998, pretty much as Clinton would have done then had our allies chosen to stand with him on it.

Bush WANTED a senate vote for a NEW res for political purposes - I guess that's how any fascist power operates when they are certain they control most media.

[LSK]

2. .

[NNN0LHI]

5. Best post of the day. Wait! Make that the week n/t

[LSK]

6. thanks

Ive had this argument too many times. Im sitting it out this time.

[bowens43]

4. No one voted to go to war with Iraq.

There was no vote on whether or not to go to war.

[madmunchie]

10. Picky picky picky

They voted giving W the authorization to go to war if need be, so that W could go to the UN with this as a bargaining chip.....yadda yadda yadda....more "SPINNING", for the vote that should have been "NOT". Believe it or not SOME Democrats actually voted against the authorization......I wonder why???? Maybe because they had the foresight and integrity to know NOT to hand a loaded gun to a psycho.

[blm]

13. Your analogy is wrong - Bush already HAD a gun, the IWR was the glass case

that had a warning to break only when necessary in the case of a national security threat.

Bush HAD the ability to go into Iraq. Too bad you think it's important to distract from Bush's violation of the IWR in your effort to exaggerate the blame you direct at the Democrats.

[madmunchie]

21. Too bad you can't admit that not only Bush has some explaining to do

Until we are brave enough to hold EVERYBODY involved accountable, things won't change. OUR party should have stood out and fought Bush with a "NO" vote for going back into Iraq. Our Party should have questioned what the real motives were. Our Party, after all, is supposed to be representative of us, they didn't represent me when they authorized Bush to use force, if need be. Whether you agree with my analogy or not, it is basically correct - we gave a mentally unstable insane person a weapon in which to use at will if that unstable insane person thought that there was an imminent threat to his safety, we did that while he was in the same room as his #1 threat. It was a disaster waiting to happen. I knew that, why didn't the Democrats that authorized use of force? Why in 2004, were there Democrats still standing by their votes????? Why are Democrats NOW saying that they WOULDN'T have voted the same way????? Because the tide has changed and the public agrees with them, so now it is SAFE for their political careers, THAT is why. I like the guys who were smart enough AND had enough integrity to know BEFORE the "sheeple" finally figured some of these things out.

THIS is the question of our time. Do we excuse "our guys", because they are in "our family" and do we say that they were "fooled", "duped", "didn't know everything that the WH knew", "didn't know that W would actually attack Iraq".....this is much like a family. Everybody outside your family is held to a higher standard and your family members are given all of the understanding and excuses in the world. Maybe if you admit to your family member's faults, you admit your own. Until you do that though, you can never really adddress the problems effectively and honestly. The Democrats can't rightfully condemn W's policies, until they face the fact that they were complicit by standing by and lending support to what has happened.

My truth is truth for all, starting with myself and going from there. I hold myself to the same standards as I expect from everybody else, no matter what political party that they are in.

Edited for grammer

[blm]

22. The problem with that is we've had 4yrs of the FOCUS being on the Dems for

supporting a resolution that would have been perfectly fine had it been administered properly. Because of that circumatsnce, Bush has ESCAPED SCRUTINY for his VIOLATIONS of the IWR for that entire four years thanks to those who believe the Dems for the resolution need to be the main target STILL.

Spin it into a noble cause all you want - the bottom line is STILL that you let Bush off the hook because of the 4yr obseesion of attacking the Democrats for voting for a resolution that BUSH VIOLATED ALONE.

[madmunchie]

24. There is no spin here, Bush should be gone, everybody that supported

going to Iraq should be gone or at least not going in an upward direction. Bush should be make to pay for what he has done - no doubt - I was screaming and swearing at him from 2000', when they stole the election. I have no respect for milk toast Senators that didn't stand up to Bush when they had their chance. We need to clean out Washington, and I won't be a hypocrite and lay it all in the Republicans hands, because there were too many Democrats that were too mute for too long about Iraq. They need to go, along with Bush and most, if not all of the Republicans. I am talking revolution, not just pointing at one Party and blaming them for absolutely everything.

Like I said before, I knew that giving Bush the power to go into Iraq was a mistake, why didn't our elected officials? I don't care that you don't want to shine the light on our Party's flaws, I want to shine the light on EVERYBODY that was complicit in this. Too many innocent lives have been taken and destroyed. I don't want this to happen again. I want a message to be sent loud and clear to all politicians, use your brains and integrity and do your damn jobs or you will be handed your walking papers.

Edited for grammer

[Jacobin]

12. Yeah, right

NOBODY thought Bush* wanted to invade Iraqnam? :eyes:
NOBODY thought he was trying to get a fig leaf from congress(got it) and from the UN (didn't get it)

We all thought he was just trying to bluff saddam into giving up all those nasty WMDs :eyes:

Why anyone would try this 'out' for the IWR voters is forking beyond me. It screams: I'm a fool

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. But...but...they were "misled" by the idiot. Which makes them?

Incompetant? Naive? Stupid?

Or, merely poltically ambitious enough to sacrifice lives to fulfill those ambitions?

Any of which makes them unfit to hold public office.

[madmunchie]

9. Bravo!!!!!!!!

It truly amazes me how many people try to wiggle around this very basic question. Thank you for being at least one person out there that understands where I am coming from.

[TahitiNut]

15. Exactly.

Fools and war criminals.

[politicasista]

11. We are not helping the troops in Iraq with this divisive talk

I would rather spend my energy supporting withdrawal, and continuing to speak out against this war, rather than who should or shouldn't be president in 08. The war will never end and are troops will not get home faster if we keep throwing rocks at Democrats that have spoke out from the beginning and are trying to get out of this mess.

Have you done anything to help Congress win in 06?

Have you called your senators to see if they support the Downing Street Memo?

Or are you just dreaming about 08 thinking that the future nominee is going to magically wave a magic wand and command that the media be fair and balanced and that voting machines count accurately and that the bad smear guys would just go away?


Continuing to blame democrats for the war is helping Bush get away with his lies and letting him off the hook. He would have gone to war anyway.

[TahitiNut]

17. "Divisive"?

I see nothing wrong with separating fact from fiction, legal from illegal, moral from immoral, and truth from lies. I call that being principled, not "divisive." But if "dividing" criminals from non-criminals is to be called "divisive" so be it.
:shrug:

[politicasista]

18. This has been talked about over and over again

And this is a time where Democrats are out campaigning and raising money for 06 candidates, and wanting the end the war and people are continuing to blame those Dems for a vote that wouldn't have mattered cause Bush was going to invade anyway.

Instead of getting behind those that want to end the war, we contiune to lash out at the ones who are trying to get us out. We are failing to realize that that this is ONE man's fault, and we are letting him get away with his lies, not to mention letting him off the hook.

As I said earlier, as long as we continue to blame Dems, it won't bring our soldiers home or and the war sooner. And even bringing up 08 when we don't know what the political landscape will look like two years from now.





This is Bush's war.

[TahitiNut]

19. I guess that's the difference between a partisan and an independemt.

I'm an independent, liberal, (small-d) democrat. Partisans seem to think about 50% of the politicians are "good guys" while I think it's closer to about 25-30%. Some people think the illegal war "was ONE man's fault" and I think it's EVERYONE'S fault who either supported it or kept quiet. It's a CRIME against peace - a war crime. We are, all of us, a criminal nation. An outlaw nation. We will remain so until those MOST responsible (perhaps 20-30 people in positions of authority) are imprisoned for 20-years-to-life. Those who were complici should never hold office again ... like the members of the Nazi Party after WW2.

[politicasista]

20. I believe in accountability

That's why we need to support the Downing Street Memo.

[TayTay]

23. The problem with the war is that not enough people want to leave

who sit in Congress. We need more people to join this push for a withdrawal.

We don't need a purge based on who was the purist in the land first. That formula would include substantial numbers of the very voters we want to enlist in this effort. Most Americans did not turn, decisively, against this war until late '05 or this year.

Go ahead, purge the ones you don't like. Let me know when you want to get serious about ending a war and not just doing a liberal purge. If it works for you, fine. I would rather enlist people in the fight than kick out the converts.

[madmunchie]

25. I am ambitious, I want to do both

I want to make sweeping changes that threaten both Houses and both sides of the aisles. Anybody who was "quiet" until 05', doesn't deserve to be in the House. To correct this, we need fresh blood and to get rid of the dimwitted slow movers.

Yes, we need to get out of Iraq, but we also need to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again.

Do you hear the drumbeats for Iran??? Who will stand up, even if alone to make sure that doesn't happen?