256 men & women in House & Senate voted against the war resolution

[JustJoe]

It's worth remembering that fact & those who, in
the face of the rush to war, showed the courage to vote
against the isanity & slaughter:

House votes for & against:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=455

Senate votes against: (scroll down)
http://www.socqrl.niu.edu/forest/peace/tide.html

(Posted this in another thread but it deserves its own...)

[poskonig]

1. Kick

:kick:

[Kbowe]

9. Double kick!

We need to print this out and keep it for the campaign season.

[salin]

2. Thanks for the reminder

we do have some voice - we need to work together to have a louder voice (we should be thinking about primaries for congressional elections... NOW!)

[Cheswick2.0]

3. I agree, they deserve praise

If anyone here has a rep who voted against it ,I hope they will congratulate and thank that person

[mike_c]

4. keep kicking

:kick:

[CarlBallard]

5. And not a single one of them was a member of the Green party

*Ducks*

[salin]

6. while not a green... I wonder how one might have voted

if in a race, where no dem was running (here in Indiana crazyDanBurton was, I believe, unopposed) - one ran - did a kick%ss job (or the repub got caught driving drunk right before the election), I wonder how that Green would have voted?

Don't get me wrong. But I am a democrat. However I am concerned with the rightward turn in the past 15 years of the party (and the whole country). Can't help but wonder if there were a few even more progressive congressfolks (Greens) if it wouldn't give cover to more dems to come back to their 1980s roots? Don't know if the place to go isn't some of the uncontested republican seats - especially when the repubs are - policy wise - demonstrating how CRAZY they are. Would that be a bad thing?

Too me, it isn't always black/white. Sometimes gray. But I live in a red state - where the whole Nader thing was irrelevant - so I don't bare the anger that some dems here carry. I aim my anger straight at Rove, DeLay, Bush etc and their triumphantalization of Nixonian Ratfucking tactics.

[CarlBallard]

7. Why not run as a Democrat though?

The Democrats should run folks against Burton because you never know. But if the people willing to run aren't in a party that has the orgizinational structure, the money and the experience to make a difference it hurts both the party and whomever might run against Burton. Running liberals as Democrats, and recruting liberals both to run and as part of the party, has the added bonus of moving the party to the left.

[Ardee]

8. excellent post, and a healing one as well....

Greens in congress, what a concept...I firmly believe we are headed for that reality and I,too, echo Salin's eloquently posed question as to whether their presence there will assist democratic legislators in voting their conscience rather than their leaderships direction....

[Kbowe]

10. Jeffords for President....

Why not?

[zorkpolitics]

11. Just to be accurate it was 156 voted against

[JustJoe]

12. Sorry bout that--wishful addition!... n/t

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

13. Kick

Well deserved kick, I might add!

[JustJoe]

14. ATTENTION! 156! 156! 156!

Dont want anybody to use the wrong number as a talking point.
Too late to edit.
Thanks to zorkpolitics.