If the Dems in Congress had voted for the war our troops wouldn't be dying

[NNN0LHI]

You don't here that anywhere. Do you? But that is only because enough of Dems did vote to support Bush's Iraq invasion. Had the Dems not given him the vote he wanted that would have never stopped him. The world could not stop him for Christ's sake. But if the Dems had voted down his war resolution BS, or whatever it was, every death of an American soldier in Iraq would be blamed on the Dems for not supporting "our" president, and therefore are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Don't even try to tell me that this is some convoluted theory either. Because those who paid any attention to the lead up to the war vote before the election last year and have any memory of how the Repugs and their screaming on air pundits were already doing it back then. As it stands now, each and every death is being squarely blamed on the person (George W. Bush) who sent these men and women to their demise. As it should be.

Don

[ThorsteinVeblen]

1. this is some convoluted theory.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Yes, by all means, let us exhonerate Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and...

Edwards of their own culpability. The enablers of this regime should be exempt from criticism. Heck, they should even be promoted to higher office!

:puke:

[Cha]

30. Yeah! That would fit right in with the "1984" theme!

[TahitiNut]

56. Yup. Sounds like someone's been channeling Orwell.

Or maybe it's just too much Faux Nooze?

Let's see... voting in opposition to the preemptive invasion of Iraq would then expose one to charges (from fascist fartbrains) of being somehow responsible for the deaths of soldiers??? By that 'logic,' everyone who voted for Gore is responsible for the crimes of the Bushoilini Madministration? I don't think so. :shrug:

I'll channel Commander Codpiece and say, "Who the fuck cares what sociopathic lying fascist farts say??" :eyes:

[molly]

2. I've heard this before - THANKYOU for the post!

[meti57b]

3. I agree with you.

If the Democrats had been in power they would not have started this war, themselves. As it was, they almost had no choice. Now, the Dems that voted for war are in a sense innoculated against being trashed by security-obsessed reactionaries.

[IkeWarnedUs]

66. They almost had no choice?!?!?!?!?!?

Now they are innoculated?!?!?!?!?!?

If they had no choice it is because they felt they had to dance with the one who brought them there. They are all DLC/New Democrats - who are directed in their policy by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) which is just a Trojan horse for PNAC.

The advantage for Democrats who join the New Democrats (which is what the DLC is calling themselves these days) is that they get LOTS of money in fundraising. In other words, they sold their souls - and those of the 260+ troops who gave their lives so far.

Kerry, Edwards, Graham, Lieberman, Gephardt - all members of the New Democrats. Note, Dean and Kucinich are not (Mosley-Braun and Sharpton aren't either, but they are not current office holders).

I know Dean was a member of the DLC, but he isn't anymore, and I don't think Kucinich ever was. All of those I mentioned are now - check out the membership list on the DLC website: http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

For those of you who missed it, there are strong connections between the DLC and PNAC:

Will Marshall, the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) and former Policy Director for the DLC is a signer on PNAC's two statements on Iraq. PPI was created to set policy for the DLC and is very closely connected to the DLC. In fact, the DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC).

Tod Lindberg, published by The Blueprint (DLC magazine) also signed both PNAC Iraq statements, as did James Steinberg, Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

I also found claims that Gary Schmitt, president of PNAC and Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation helped fund the DLC in the beginning, but I have not found any real, verifiable proof of that.

Marshall Wittman, another Blueprint author, is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute (Richard Perle, trustee) and former aid to Ralph Reed.

I don't think all of the New Democrats know the evil they signed on with. That's how it works when you sell your soul. The devil doesn't tell you the downside.

And if you think they are innoculated against critisism from "security-obsessed reactionaries", go see what Free Republic has to say about any of the Dems.

No choice my ass.

[Clete]

4. If this was a political ploy to save our Demo butts, I can't

even begin to say how sad it makes me. Convince me that there was even a shred of moral clarity in this. If what you say is true then our leaders as corrupt as any one in the BFEE, or on this planet.

[Cha]

5. I agree! And think it is bowing and kowtowing to the "repukes

are the boss" syndrome. And acquiesing to Their agenda...Not our own Democratic Principles.

[Julien Sorel]

6. It was obviously political on their part.

Most of them had to go along with it, or they'd be painted as 'soft on terra,' and literally every act of terrorism from here to eternity that happened afterwards would be laid at the Dems' feet. We now know for a fact that Hussein was no threat; without the war it would have been difficult to ever fully establish that.

I vehemently oppose the war as immoral, but I understand the position of the Democrats perfectly, and politically, it was the right thing to do. That says more about our population than it does about our leadership, by the way. This is still a democracy.

[LWolf]

7. This is sick and illogical.

I think you are correct when you say that he would not have been stopped, votes or no. But I can find no reasonable, sensible, logical link to the idea that Iraq would then become the dems fault for not supporting it. If you don't support it, the blame lies squarely at the feet of the man who sent them in anyway. Bush.

The idea that a legislator should support an unsupportable action so that they won't be blamed for it later....

or that by not supporting what you don't support, you are then responsible for the mess you didn't support...

Thank the universe I like to keep things simple. If it is wrong, I'm not going to vote for it. And any misplaced accusation and blame can be sent back to the sender with plain facts.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

10. Don is arguing that the Dems did it for political reasons

I totally agree.

The only difference is that Don applauds the Democrats for being "smart", I find the actions their sick and sad and incredibly cynical. They traded the lives of innocent Iraqis and American Service Men to save their political asses.

They should have stood up and screamed defiance. They should have resisted with everything they had. Tom Paine would have.

History would've proven them right. They would now be in a much stronger political position by securing their base and looking consistant in the eyes of moderates and independent voters.

By voting for the Iraq War they have made enemies of people like me. And I will not stand for the party that contains such cynical and impotant cowardice.

[realFedUp]

15. My Congressman's excuse...

was it made Bush go through the UN...I don't know if that
is accurate or not. I think there were a lot of protests
from citizens to go through the UN and not to invade
Iraq pre-emptively.

I think the Bushies wanted that extra time to actually
move military into place. They would have gone whether
or not Dems voted for it IMO.

[JVS]

37. you're right

They thought they were playing it safe and now their supporters whine at the backfiring of the decision.

Maybe they should have taken the risk of being a true opposition. No risk, no reward.

[jiacinto]

8. You know what

I've said that too. I've said that resolution or not Bush would have gotten the war. Given the circumstances at the time I can understand why they voted the way they did, although in hindsight I admit that I may have been wrong. But I do think that Bush would have had his war either way; and that, by at least forcing him to go to the UN, they stalled it by a few months and forced Bush to show that he was willing to insult every ally of ours.

But given what I say I fully agree with you.

[poskonig]

11. Lame.

23 Senators did not vote to authorize the war. Other Democrats believed they could "trust" Bush.

The idea is since Bush supported conquering other nations for no reason, it is okay for the four horsemen (Edwards, Geppy, Kerry, and Sleeperman) to do it too.

This is bullshit and many are not buying it.

[jiacinto]

12. And what do you want to do?

Re-Elect Bush because people didn't vote 100% the way you wanted them to? That's one thing I don't understand about DU. Expect 100% perfection from every Democrat in office; and then, if said elected official, deviates just one bit from the far left agenda, he or she needs to be voted out so that that person can be "punished". Even though that person is probably with the left wing probably 75-80% of the time, it's not 100%, so s/he must "pay". And thus those elected officials must be replaced with people who are supportive of their agenda 10-20% of time because the first person wasn't there 100% of the time.

[poskonig]

14. No. They just won't get my vote in the primary.

We have to have *some* standards, draw the line someplace, etc. etc.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

16. "Expect 100% perfection from every Democrat in office;"

Hey

I am nothing if not practical.

There are no perfect politicians.

But when it comes to War, there had better be a compelling reason (I though Afgahistan was justified). I will not stand for political maneuvering when it comes to the lives of innocents, DAMMIT. Fuck them. They are going down.

[Hubert Flottz]

13. The TRUTH is they were all lied to!

Just like the rest of the world! They TRUSTED BUSH like he asked!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. they were LIED to!.....LIED TO!!! Hubert Flottz that is exactly right!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

19. No, they lied to the American people

They repeated lies that they knew to be lies. That makes them liars.

[disgruntella]

22. which lies did they know about?

And when did they know about them? There's a thread about this in Politics & Campaigns too, but no one has really answered the question in a way that PROVES the Dems in the Senate knew they were being lied to.

I didn't become politically active until Sept. 2002, so maybe I've missed something... or maybe y'all are having 20-20 hindsight on their behalf...

[Cha]

24. I guess they didn't read the internet news like we did and

they weren't able to discern like we did... that bush was lying his ass off. :kick:

[nolabels]

61. Maybe they did read the news from the internet, and perhaps they .........

They logged onto sites where they could get the best return on their vote for the least amount of controversy. Unlike republicans (who vote on a incoherent party ideology) the dems first priority to is raise enough money to stay competitive with any republican challenger
and still look like a dem

http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/special_reports/mojo_400/
Campaign Inflation Industry pumped in a record 696 million dollars to elect George W. Bush and a GOP Congress. The Mother Jones 400 reveals the nation's top contributors -- and what they expect in return.
by Eric Bates March 5, 2001

In the days after the election last November, as the nation waited to see who would emerge as the next president, another drama was unfolding on Capitol Hill. Over the objections of Republican lawmakers, the Clinton administration issued new rules designed to prevent repetitive motion injuries on the job. Nearly 2 million workers are hurt each year performing repeated tasks or heavy lifting on assembly lines, delivery trucks, grocery checkouts, and office computers, and federal officials estimated the new ergonomics standards would not only protect workers, but would also save business $9 billion annually in lost productivity.
Richard Farmer, founder and chairman of the Cintas Corporation -- the nation's largest uniform supply company -- was not impressed with the potential savings. Like other big businesses, Cintas had lobbied to block the rules, saying the cost of implementing them would be "devastating." Farmer had no trouble, however, finding money to try to implement his political agenda. According to a list of the nation's 400 largest campaign contributors compiled by Mother Jones, Farmer gave $721,000 to the Republicans in the last election cycle, making him the second-largest individual donor to the GOP. Such contributions, combined with an ad campaign by the National Association of Manufacturers, made the issue a top priority for Republicans. The day before Al Gore conceded the presidency to George W. Bush, GOP congressional leaders announced they would work with the new administration to overturn the safety measures.

All told, a record $3 billion poured into federal campaigns during the last election. An estimated 55 percent went to Bush and GOP candidates for Congress -- and $696 million of that came from corporations and wealthy executives eager to underwrite the Republicans' hands-off approach to business. When campaign contributions are divided into 10 broad industries ranging from agribusiness to transportation, it becomes clear that every major business sector except lawyers and communications sided firmly with Bush (see chart).

To track precisely what business spent on the election -- and what it expects in return -- we linked each of the individual donors on this year's Mother Jones 400 to the industries they represent. Underwriting campaigns has become part of the cost of doing business, an investment that pays dividends in access to policymakers with the power to reduce taxes, ward off regulations, award contracts, and dole out subsidies. "We're building a relationship," Dan Scheinman, a vice president with Cisco Systems, explained to the Wall Street Journal as his boss, John Chambers (No. 31), handed out $582,933 to candidates for federal office and their political parties. "Money contributing is part of the relationship."
(snip)

[bluestateguy]

17. war vote

People say that the Democrats had to vote for it to diffuse the issue in the campaign, but it never really did. They just kept on talking about it right up to election day. Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan are no longer US senators. John Kerry likely blew his chance at the nomination by casting his vote in favor of war, which only alienated the Left, while doing little to impress the superhawks. Ironically, it was the Democrats who harped on the White House for a congressional resolution, to which it agreed to--right before the election, ensuring it would be a major camapaign issue. Had the Democrats waited until after the election to demand a vote, the Iraq issue may not have been as front and center as it was. Democrats should know by now that they will never win a testosterone contest with Republicans over who can out muscle, out bomb and out sabre rattle who.

[John_H]

20. You're right but it doesn't absolve the "shoulder to shoulder" Dems

of their culpability. If more dems had fought Chimpco every step of the way all along, * would be below 50% and planning the rest of his life clearing brush and gazing out at the Crawford wasteland from the porch of his aluminum sided ranch.

[Cha]

27. You got that right! If only they had had the courage!

[leftofthedial]

21. DUers, especially the puritan leftists, want it both ways

in one post, they excoriate the Democrats for not playing political hardball against the REpugs. Then in the next, they slam the Democrats for behaving politically instead of morally.

Its POLITICS, not MORALITICS.

As a politician, one must vote in WHATEVER way is necessary to achieve the most moral outcome possible. Voting on a moral basis is shortsighted and nearly always loses.

In this case, the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion, with or without Democratic support. Congress hasn't stopped a President from waging war at his own discretion since before any of us were born.

NNH0LHI is right. The better long-term strategy was to remove the "blame-Dems" card from the Repug deck. The invasion was wrong, the war is a disaster, and George Dubya Shitforbrains LIED to get us into it.

Either way, the current circumstance on the ground in IRaq would be the same.

edited to remove needlessly inflamatory term.

[Cha]

25. "Playing political hardball" for a Dem is telling the Truth!

At all times..not just when it is politically expedient!

Give em Hell Harry! "I give em the Truth and they think it is hell!" :kick:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. "War is Peace" - "Peace is War"

Voting for war is good.

Voting against war is bad.

Interesting theory. But, I think it's been done. Back in "1984".

[Cha]

26. Yeah! I try not to live in that book!

[IndianaGreen]

31. Ignorance is Strength!

[DemLikr]

48. NAIVETE IS...NAIVETE!

Thank you for illustrating that point for me. I needed a reminder for when I'm having fantasies of a political utopida in the clouds, where you seem to live.

Come, try life in the real world.

[GOPBasher]

28. True.

That vote did *NOT* give Chimp any power he didn't already have from the War Powers Act. He can send troops anywhere he wants at any time.

[ComerPerro]

29. You make a very good point

Interesting take.
You may have something there.

[NNN0LHI]

32. What the Monday morning quarterbacks here who keep saying...

..."we knew Bush was lying, why didn't they know" people seem to forget is that this all happened BEFORE the UN weapons inspectors even got to Iraq and couldn't find shit. What? Short memories or something? And we still have not found none. You forget what happens if they had found a shitload of WMD's in Iraq for some reason? Anyone who voted against the war would have been labeled a damn traiter immediatly. The next thing that would have happened was some reporter from the Telegraph would have accidently found some official papers in some bombed out government building that showed the Dems who voted against it were on Saddams payroll like what happened to the British anti-war MP. Remember? I didn't see one person on this thread who is bashing the Dems now who ever posted that they were 100% sure there were no WMD's in Iraq before the vote. Not one. Perhaps some said as I did, that even if they had some WMD's in Iraq, they were no threat to us. Do some soul searching. Who here said they were 100% certain that there were no WMD's in Iraq before the vote? And had the UN or our troops come up with anything at all, the media would have blown it all out of proportion and made it sound like Bush saved all of us from a quick and certain death from them. You seen it happen every time there were false alarms of WMD's being found. I am really starting to wonder about some of you get the selective memories around here when you have a chance to bash a Dem. No shit.

Don

[Booberdawg]

34. Not a productive exercise in my opinion

"I am really starting to wonder about some of you get the selective memories around here when you have a chance to bash a Dem. No shit."

I agree. I'm more interested in what they will do NOW.

Politics is the art of bullshit. BOTH sides do it. They don't all it the GAME of politics for nothin'. People bashing the Dems over this would have them commit political suicide instead. Nothing productive in that.

[wuushew]

40. Why did Kucinich and Graham vote no then?

poor political decision making?

The chickhawk dems could have atleast abstained from voting.

[Cha]

43. They voted their conscience!

[Booberdawg]

33. Agree it was political suicide to vote agaist the War

I wish more people understood that - particularly the ones who consider it a reason to dismiss out of hand any candidate that voted for it.

Bush would have had his war anyway. It was the smart thing to do for the Dems to neutralize the issue as a weapon that could be held against them.

[JVS]

35. It might be political suicide to vote for the war too

Bummer. I suggest that the war voters face that fact and move on.

[Q]

36. Byrd: No debate, no discussion...ominously, dreadfully silent...

Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd

February 12, 2003

"We Stand Passively Mute"

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.  On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent.  There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war.  There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events.  Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate.  This is no simple attempt to defang a villain.  No.  This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time.  The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense.  It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.  And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.  High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together?  There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation.  Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur.  Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face.  Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection.  Other essential services are also short-staffed.  The mood of the nation is grim.  The economy is stumbling.  Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record.  I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see.  This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people.  This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth.  This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly.  This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security.  This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden.  In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill.  This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO.  This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper.  This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good.  We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone.  We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.  Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy.  Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region.  We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.  This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan.  Is our attention span that short?  Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq.  In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife.  Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future?  To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel?  Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal?  Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession?  Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11.  One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.  Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous.  There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent.  On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent.  On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent.  On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history."  In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card.  And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.  I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country".  This war is not necessary at this time.  Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.  Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly.  Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making.  Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

###

[Booberdawg]

42. And Senator Byrd was right!

You and I know it. Now those that so chastized the anti Iraq war people are now beginning to see we were right.

There was just nothing that would have stopped bush to have his war. Dems were smart to defuse it as a weapon that could be used against them later. Now that much of the country is having second thoughts, the Dems are in a much better position.

Always have to look at the BIG picture.

[Cha]

44. Byrd is my hero forever!

[Rose Siding]

58. Thank you! Short memories indeed.

Support for the "leadership" of Bush The Fool was wrong then and wrong now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. My rep voted against it and was easily reelected

Nancy Pelosi was reelected
Bernie Sanders was reelected

In fact most of the reps who voted against the war were reelected in '02.

Political suicide?

[sandnsea]

38. Just hold Bush responsible

That's all I want. He pushed for the war, he lied about it, he used false and speculative intelligence, he pressured agents, he lied to inspectors, he lied about inspectors, he antagonized and demeaned the UN and the world, he spit on the trust placed in him by our own elected Congress. Nobody authorized him to do that. Not even most Republicans.

He's the rat bastard, him and his Cabal. Hold them accountable for what they chose to do in direct opposition of the very clearly worded Authorization.

[Q]

41. But many Dems KNEW Bush* was rushing the US to war...

...for no good reason. What kind of politician would vote for war after listening to the warnings from Byrd and millions of protestors in the streets?

- Did they think Saddam was about to attack the US? They KNEW he didn't have that capability. They knew...and still they voted for an unjust war.

[Cha]

45. IMO, there is no way to rationalize that but some are giving

it all they got!


bush sucked 'em in.

[gully]

47. 138 DEMOCRATS voted AGAINST the war?

Worth noting I think? However, you raise some great points !

[Rose Siding]

60. 147 Dems between both houses voted no

With repubs and indies, 155 no votes

[sandnsea]

49. No they knew he went to the goddamn UN

That's what he did in September. He asked for military pressure to force Saddam to comply with disarmament. That's what he asked for and that's what Congress gave him. What Senator Byrd called it or was concerned about is one thing, what BUSH did with the Authorization is on his head. Bush did all those things in my last post. Nobody forced him to do all of that.

When it became clear that he was going to push ahead with this war at any cost, the protests began (not back in Sept 2002) and almost all Democratic leaders spoke against his behavior. It didn't matter. He pushed ahead for war anyway and he would have done it with or without that Authorization. George Bush shit all over Congress and that Authorization just like he shit all over the rest of the world.

And if you want the man held accountable you're going to have to choose. Congress is the one who has to go against him and if you want to try and bury them along with him, they're not going to be able to do anything at all.

[Redleg]

52. You got that right.

Most Dems believed that their support for the resolution did not give Bush carte blanche to attack Iraq without Congress's approval.

[FubarFly]

53. The Democratic leadership undercut and marginalized the protesters....

They were concerned about being labeled unpatriotic and weak on defense.
If they made the politically risky but morally correct decision, and actually supported the protests, I honestly believe the war could have been prevented.

Why?

Because we would have made sure that Americans knew the truth. We wouldn't have allowed people to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11,
or cooperating with al-quaeda, or any of the other lies that weak Democratic leadership allowed to foster by their complicit support of b*sh. If shrubco didn't win the PR war, they could never have launched the Iraq war.

I am still perfectly willing to put all this behind me and forgive the offenders. But not until the war supporters admit that they made a mistake. Until that happens, I'm not interested in excuses.

[sandnsea]

67. Which ones?

Different Senators took vastly different positions. You think Democrats could have made a difference? Republicans couldn't even make a difference.

"Saddam Hussein is bottled up in Iraq and there is time to let the weapons inspections play out, Hagel said.

"We have some time here," Hagel said. "We don't want the world to see America rush into war." Jan 24 2003

People are always complaining about the media and how it's completely controlled by corporations. They fired Phil Donahue because he was talking against the war for heaven's sake. And yet somehow Democrats were supposed to take control of the airwaves when they can't even get reporters to show up at press conferences half the time.

And I still can't quite get a consistent answer about what the UN was supposed to do with Iraq anyway. Containment which would have left sanctions in place. Inspections which never would have happened without the threat of force. Nothing ever, not even in 1991, with which would have absolutely left Saddam with a nuclear weapon by now and able to threaten Kuwait, Iran and whoever else. What plan did you support in Sept 2002?

[blm]

39. Good call on how the GOP groupthink

works. Typical. I can hear it from every one of the lying thugs and their echochambers in the media.

[FubarFly]

46. Good points...

But it works both ways. Now that the war is a disaster the rethugs are trying to use Democratic support to give themselves political cover. This was a bi-paritisan effort, so both parties share the blame. The reason most polls show that people believe that Democrats are attacking b*sh now simply to score political points, is because they remember clearly that the Democratic leadership endorsed this war. The Dems war vote gave b*sh credibility with the American public which they may have had difficulty gaining otherwise. Remember, at that time, there was considerably less support for the war than there was after the critical turning points- b*sh's SOTU address and Colin Powell's UN presentation.

A strong opposition voice at that time could have had considerable impact.

This is why an anti-Iraq war candidate like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich or Wesley Clark is particularly worrisome to rethug strategists. They can clearly and distinctly separate himself from b*sh's disasterous policies. The bi-partisan share the blame defense won't work against them. If it wasn't for their spirit and continued opposition, b*sh wouldn't be so vulnerable now. No matter what your feeling on Howard Dean is, you do have to give him credit for helping Democrats regain their passion and voice, so that the criticism of all Democrats can now be taken seriously.

Because of in no small part to their war support, The Democratic Party was in serious danger of being seen as a submissive, or secondary party. Much to Karl Rove's chagrin, this is no longer the case. This is despite the DINOS war vote, not because of it.

[sandnsea]

50. Democratic political cover

And Dean and Kucinich are helping the Republicans right along by rallying against the 'war voters' and in the process allowing Bush and the rest to walk away from what they've done. Good strategy.

[FubarFly]

54. That makes no sense.

A Dean or Kucinich White House is probably the ONLY scenerio in which justice will be done.

Do you really think Joe Lieberman will punish b*sh?

[Redleg]

51. I agree to some extent- I also feel that many Dems who voted

for the resolution did not believe it gave Bush carte blanche for going to war with approval from Congress. I know I will be lambasted for saying it but that is what I believe.

[FubarFly]

55. I agree, but..

They had many opportunities to recant and criticize b*sh. The war vote locked them into a strategy that they were afraid to sway from. Carte Blanche wasn't a result of the war vote; it was a result of the Dems entire approach leading up to war. Face it, there were many Dems who wanted this war as badly as b*sh did.

[Q]

57. I don't understand why Congress seems less informed than DUers...

...and how could ANYONE trust this gang after all they did to subvert the 2000 election?

- Bush* has lied all his life...was involved in shady business dealings and went AWOL when others were dying in Vietnam. Cheney has an equally crooked past with Halliburton and hiding the national energy documents. The rest of the gang are either convicted felons or are quickly on their way to indictment.

- As Sen. Byrd pointed out...the RUSH TO WAR resolution was passed with little or no debate. Some didn't bother to read it OR the patriot act before they signed on. Others simply kept quiet so as not to endanger their fragile political careers.

[FubarFly]

59. Please reread the October7th Cincinnati speech...

There were some outrageous and brazen claims made in that speech. I don't believe many Dems believed that b*sh could make those claims unless he knew something with certainty. I think many of those same Dems have since learned a valuable message about shrubco: they will say or do ANYTHING to get their way. I don't believe the Dems knew exactly how far b*sh was willing to go at the time.


Here's the link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4518337-110878,00.html

[Pastiche423]

62. How many DUers

listened to the Senate on C-Span in the weeks prior to the vote on the war rag?

The 1st thing I did every weekday, was to make myself get out of bed at a god awful hour (I am not a morning person), to search for Kef's Senate watch threads. Sometimes those threads went up to Part #4 &5, or even higher.

For hours a day, for weeks, The Senator spoke non-stop, urging the Senate to WAKE UP and do their duty!!

No one can tell me that the senators din't know that * was lying to them. That is pure bullshit, unless they were too fucking stupid to pay attention.

On the day of the vote, Senator Robert C. Byrd said:

"...I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution and is instead poised to hand off to the President the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace.

I do not, in my heart of hearts, believe that this is what the American people expect of the Senate. I have heard from tens of thousands of Americans – people from all across this country of ours – who have urged me to keep up the fight. I am only one Senator from a small state, yet in the past week I have received nearly 20,000 telephone calls and nearly 50,000 e-mails supporting my position.

I want all of those people across America who took the time to contact me to know how their words have heartened me and sustained me in my efforts to turn the tide of opinion in the Senate. They are my heroes, and I will never forget the remarkable courage and patriotism that reverberated in the fervor of their messages."

Senator Byrd was not the only senator that received nearly 50,000 emails. Senators from all over the country received thousands of emails and calls against the vote for months!

What that told me after the vote was, that those senators that voted for the slaughter ignored their constinuents. They ignored them out of fear of being dubbed "unpatriotic" by fucking rethugs!

Play by the rethug rules and you fuck up everytime. I will not forget those votes and I will not give them my vote.

[ShaneGR]

64. So should we all vote Green?

And help re-elect Bush???

[Pastiche423]

65. Where in this entire thread

has anyone mentioned the Green Party? Why do you?

[bvar22]

68. Any politician in Washington....

...or elsewhere who believed that sacrificing our troops would give him a political inoculation should be sentenced to night patrol in enemy territory in Iraq.

Political expediency does not justify the useless death of our soldiers, the gratuitous death of the soldiers of a foreign nation that did not (and could not) attack or threaten us, or the deaths and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq.

There is a special place in hell reserved for those who demanded this war, and for those who were too cowardly to oppose it!
(in high whiney voice while wringing hands): "Oh Jesus!!! I could loose my job if I don't vote for bush*s war!!!! How will I make the payments on the new Mercedes???...Oh well... too bad about all the dead bodies...what's for dinner?"

[tameszu]

69. I'm not sure if that's true

If none of the Dems had voted, then either (i) the GOP would have gotten enough of their people onside to win the vote; or (ii) the Bush Admin would have attacked anyway. Constitutional history indicates that the President can initiate a war without consulting Congress--although Congress can pull the plug on funding after a couple of months.

I'm pretty much convinced that the media may have been the linchpin here, not the UK, the UN, or Congress. All the WH cared about was enough support in the polls in making this decision.

[NNN0LHI]

70. Wait and see where ingoring the power of a "bully pulpit" combined...

...with a complacent (at best) media gets you naysayers. I didn't forget Bush last year leading up to the election on every cable news channel damn near every day of the week (sometimes twice a day) blaming all of the countries woes on the Democratic Senate holding up all his plans to get America out of this mess. Nor did I forget that more than 70% of Americans were buying into Bush's lies. No I didn't forget. Now where is Bush and his "bully pulpit" as he running for president in a race that is beginning to look like he may lose? I don't hardly see him anymore at all. Is that a coincidence do you think? Rove and his thugs would like nothing better than to see perhaps the Dem with the best chance of beating Bush not even be considered by some Dem's because of his strategy to push a vote for the Iraq resolution when he did. He gets a good laugh at those who fall for his crap.

Bush is not smart. But he is one of the best I have seen at staying on point about saying what his handlers want people to hear. Remember someone would ask him "hey, Mr. President, what are you going to do about the economy". And he would answer with some BS that included something about how much danger America was in from Iraq and WMD's, and therefore no one wanted to build anything which was costing America jobs. Then the cable news would play that clip every five minutes throughout the day as per someones orders. And the majority of American people were falling for it too. I remember this. Why don't others?

All of Americas problems were being blamed on or connected to Iraq by Bush every chance he had. The stock market. High unemployment. You name it. And most of this country was falling for it too. Remember?

Had the Dems all voted against Bush's Iraq proposal here is an example of what Bush would be on cable all day long, every day saying right now:

Bush, "I could have got a UN resolution and more international support from France, Germany, Russia, and even the Arab countries if them Democrats had supported my Iraq resolution last year".

Bush, "Your sons and daughters would not be dying right now every day if them Democrats had supported my Iraq resolution and I could have then had the UN involved. Its all of them Democrats fault. Make no mistake about it".

Bush, "Our country would not be going bankrupt right now if the Democrats would have voted for my Iraq resolution and then the UN countries around the world would have helped pay for all of this. Its the Democrats fault that you are out of a job, our national debt is skyrocketing, and our economy is in such bad shape".

These are just a few examples of what I can envision right of the top of my head. There are more. Many more. Use you imagination and think of others. And don't think this would not have happened had every Dem voted against the damn resolution either. Because you are wrong if you do. And don't forget another thing. This Iraq thing is best case scenario stuff so far. Think a little more if Iraq would have had a stockpile of WMD's and had used them killing a few thousand American soldiers. Even Robert Byrd one day on C-Span listed the types of weapons that the USA had sold to Saddam. He was holding the receipts for them in his hand as he spoke. What he listed sent chills up my spine. While Americans were mournig those thousands of deaths you can be sure as hell that would have been blamed on the Dems for their lack of supporting the president too. And about 70% the American people would have agreed. A few thousand DUers would not have. But we don't count in the grand scheme of things. We would have been labeled traitors right along with the congressional Dems by a majority of Americans. Take that to the bank. Think about that. Wouldn't that have been just great?

And don't think we or the Dems are out of the woods yet by a long shot either. The CIA has this scum bag David Kaye in Iraq doing whaterver needs to be done right now to find some kind of WMD's or some scientist who will swear they are there to give cover to this invasion. And yes, we will know it is all BS here at DU. But the American people who were mostly for this war are looking for some cover themselves to soothe their own guilt and in the mood to believe anything Bush tells them at this point. That same 70% of Americans I spoke of earlier in this post. So keep that in mind too.

Don