Question for supporters of those who voted for war

[JNelson6563]

I am curious as to how you felt when your candidate voted for Bush's war in Iraq? Did you support them in their vote? Do you support their current statements about the war?

The reason I ask is it seems to me that some supporters of candidates who voted for the war do not seem to understand how some of us feel about that.

Anger and frustration with the Dems who were busy standing "shoulder to shoulder with pResident Bush" is something that should be addressed.

I have heard the explanations from these canddidates as to why they voted for the Iraq res. but every time I hear some right-winger announce that Bush had "bi-partisan support" for this war I'd like to smack each and every one of our Dems who fell for this business from Team Bush.

I realize many do not fully understand this feeling of frustration and betrayal but I would like to try to understand their lack of it.

Julie

[meegbear]

1. Just search the archives ...

this has been thrashed AD NAUSEUM by you people. Drop it.

[JNelson6563]

3. Wow! Thanks so much!

I am so much more informed. I can really understand it now. Not.

Julie

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

5. You really set the standard

I asked a sincere question and have gotten nothing but nastiness from you. I'm gonna go ahead and guess you support someone who supported the Iraq resolution and that you have a problem with questions along these lines whether they are sincere or not. You say it's been beat to death but I haven't seen it and was hoping to understand it.

Gee I hope nobody's campaign is counting too heavily on you for recuiting supporters....

Julie

[dajabr]

7. Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean...

Can be said in many ways! :-)

[flpoljunkie]

28. Julie, this is the answer to why we rushed to war in Iraq...

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031013/usnews/13cheney_4.htm

Such reliance, evidently, has its pluses and minuses. "Bush wasn't sure of himself on foreign affairs. Cheney was," says a Bush family insider. "If Cheney were not vice president, it would've been different. The Iraq war situation would've been handled differently. There was a rush to judgment to go to war, all filtered through Cheney. If Cheney had not been there, there may have been a second chance for the weapons inspectors, we would've been slower to move to war, and, maybe, we would have organized a bigger coalition."

This is from page 4 of a long article about the puppetmaster Cheney, the cover story from this week's U. S. News. You might want to read the entire piece.

[JNelson6563]

41. thank you

have printed out to read when I have more time. I appreciate you posting it.

Julie

[RapidCreek]

13. You people?

Who would you people be? Please describe your use of this phrase. I would be quite interested to hear it, that is if you possess the mental capacity to explain yourself. If not, please let me know that as well, as I will make every effort to take any future responses you make from that context.

RC

[dajabr]

15. I think if you click on the poster's profile...

and look at "Hobby" you'll find out what they mean by "you people."



:puke:

[Forkboy]

40. And I though my hobby was immature

:)

[boxster]

2. There's obviously a lot more to it than that, and I think we often miss

something very obvious: at the time, voting for the resolution would have been political suicide in large parts of the country.

Now, I realize that this fact does not excuse the suspension of one's beliefs, but it must be taken into consideration here. Bush had 87% support in national polls, and the "average" American was panicked by 9/11 and wanted some retribution. These same Americans were BS'd into believing Saddam was responsible.

In some parts of the country, my state included, support was near 100% and more than 80% believed Saddam was involved. Voting against this "retribution" when nearly all of your constituents are for it just isn't politically viable.

For the record, I was 100% against this joke of a war. I cannot believe people could be ignorant enough to buy the Saddam-9/11 link and I will never understand the appeal of Bush and his fraud war.

I'm only pointing these issues out because I feel that they are often overlooked in many discussions like this.

[JNelson6563]

6. I realize the politics of it

That is the part that makes me so angry. I guess I can't understand thinking such a person would provide good leadership when the times are tough. I was hoping to understand those who think so but I do not think many of them want to talk (think?) about it. No matter then.

Thanks for trying to explain. :hi:

Julie

[boxster]

10. Not to mention that politics has become pretty knee-jerk.

I understand your frustration, and I share it. It annoyed me how quickly the IWR and the Patriot Act were shoved through Congress. It's as if no one could understand that it was already too damn late to do anything about 9/11 itself and that expediency without contemplation was not the way to proceed.

Instead, Congress just rubberstamped the Patriot Act and the IWR without much meaningful discussion and with no consideration of the powers we were providing to BushCo or the ramifications of unleashing the neo-cons on a country that had nothing to do with what caused the knee-jerk reaction in the first place. The heck with the Constitution - this is war!

To actually answer your response (hehe), I don't expect that a lot of people will defend their candidate's decision to vote for the war. Everyone knows that it was a mistake in hindsight, and I think that many people take the "oh, well, everyone approved of it" mentality.

Or maybe it's more simple than that. There is no excuse now, in hindsight, and that's pretty impossible to defend.

[JohnKleeb]

12. You know theres only one person left

who voted against IWR and the patriot act, actually theres always been only one. and people wonder why we support him among other reasons lol. Thanks Dennis K. I am just curious to know who people who use this is as a litmus test support, if that were me and it isnt actually yes it is a good and key thing about Kucinich but I dont use it. If that were me it would be Kucinich :shrug: thats just me lol. Still go Kucinich :).

[boxster]

20. I really like Kucinich and wish he were doing much better in the polls,

as I think he brings a lot to the party.

Re: litmus test. Using Iraq as a litmus test would limit the candidates to Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton, and to some extent, Dean, depending on who you ask (let's not debate that here!). Clark has, of course, qualified his answer re: the IWR, so whether he meets the criteria or not depends on whether you accept him at face value (let's not debate that one here either, please!)

I think the reality is that most people don't look at the Iraq war as the only issue under consideration, right or wrong. I think it's probably too easy to say, "well, most of the other candidates voted for the IWR, so I can't hold it against my guy", whether they should or not or whether it's true or not.

[RichM]

9. These exact words could be used as an excuse for ANY governmental

outrage of any sort, at any time. They could be used to justify ANY kind of witch hunt, atrocity, or immoral undertaking.

The argument that "In some parts of the country...support was near 100%" just means that the Democrats who voted for the war lacked the courage to vote against something they knew was wrong, out of selfish concern for their own job security.

They could ALL have stood up and spoken out like Byrd, Kennedy, & Kucinich. The ones that failed to do so, lacked the courage & principle to do so. Nothing excuses such craven behavior - not "woulda been political suicide" or anything else.

[dajabr]

11. Bingo...

--snip--

It is notable that Democrats who lost key Senate races Tuesday were not the party's profiles in courage: Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland were centrists who voted for Bush's tax plan and Bush's war. Courageous contenders--people like Indiana Representative Julia Carson and New Jersey's Rush Holt, who were attacked for their votes against authorizing Bush to wage a unilateral war against Iraq--won handily. Most Democratic representatives and senators who voted against the war resolution won overwhelmingly. Illinois Senator Dick Durbin told a reporter that while campaigning at suburban train stations before the election, "I must have seen 4,000 people, and exactly two came up and disagreed with me on Iraq. I can't tell you how many people stopped in the rain and took off their glove and said, 'I want to thank you for that vote on Iraq.'" Durbin was re-elected by a margin of 750,000 votes. The highest-profile antiwar Senator, Minnesota's Paul Wellstone, would, had he lived, almost certainly have won as well.

No doubt Wellstone would say now, as he did after another bad result: "We don't have time for despair. The fight doesn't change. It just gets harder. But it's the same fight." That's true. But progressives must be realistic about why Democrats lost. That will require them to look beyond spin about how victories in gubernatorial races in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as several Western states, put the Democrats back into a leadership position in the states. (Losses of competitive gubernatorial races in Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida and Texas undermine that argument.) They must also resist the inclination to believe, now that the face of the federal government is conservative from top to bottom, that it will be hard for Republicans to run against government.

The election of 2002 has taught two lessons that should not be lost as the 2004 presidential contest begins: Bush is a relentless and effective campaigner; and the only way to beat him and his party will be for Democrats to distinguish themselves as a relentless and effective party of opposition. "This Republican-lite Democratic Leadership Council approach is a loser," says Senator Russ Feingold. Millions of Americans want a clear alternative to the Republican agenda, but in too many contests, Feingold says, Democrats aren't offering one. "If the results of these midterm elections tell us anything, it's that."

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=nichols

More: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/46/we_192_01.html

[boxster]

17. Not to play devil's advocate here, but would you prefer that Congress

was 100% Republican? We can't fight battles in Congress if there aren't any Democrats there, can we?

Though I'm exaggerating, it's pretty damn easy in hindsight to say that every Democrat should have voted against the war, but do you honestly believe that if the war had been over in a week and we'd found massive amounts of WMD that speaking out against the war beforehand wouldn't have ended political careers?

Ok, here's worst-case scenario for the Dems. On the way to Baghdad, we find chemical and biological weapons - tons of them. Bush's entire premise is justified in the minds of the sheep, and his approval ratings go through the roof - 95%. Those approval ratings stay high because they drag out the WMD finds for months and months.

Now, it's election time: I guarantee that every person in Congress who voted AGAINST the war is beaten to death by ads proclaiming that they were against a war that obviously needed to be fought (in the minds of the media, the sheep, and the neo-cons). The media would have been relentless. We would have lost countless seats in Congress.

Yes, they should have stood up for what they believe, but in practice, that is not always feasible. While this was obviously a huge issue, there are plenty of other battles to be waged in Congress, and we NEED Democrats in those seats.

If you need an example of this theory in practice, look at 2002. My little story would have made our losses in Congress in 2002 look like a minor bump in the road. I am NOT defending their decisions, I am only explaining the political reality at the time of the votes.

By the way, you might want to re-read my post. Those were not my views. It was an explanation of another viewpoint that I know that a lot of people have. I do not share it and cannot believe how this crap got ramrodded through Congress.

Support for the war and support for Bush are STILL very high in my neck-of-the-woods, easily in the 60's. EVEN NOW, speaking out against Bush and against the war is a tough proposition.

Believe me, I've tried.

[dajabr]

18. Wasn't the 2002 Election over before the war?

So, if your theory is correct, they were protecting their asses for an election 2 years down the road?

[boxster]

22. Are you forgetting the long buildup to the war?

BushCo was branding people unpatriotic way before we set foot in Iraq and it was a major issue in the 2002 campaign.

Perfect example = Max Cleland. He lost limbs in Vietnam, yet was branded as unpatriotic by his idiot opponent and BushCo, because he opposed the war.

Stupid, yes, but it likely cost him the race.

[dajabr]

23. See post #11...

"It is notable that Democrats who lost key Senate races Tuesday were not the party's profiles in courage: Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland were centrists who voted for Bush's tax plan and Bush's war. Courageous contenders--people like Indiana Representative Julia Carson and New Jersey's Rush Holt, who were attacked for their votes against authorizing Bush to wage a unilateral war against Iraq--won handily."

Courage was, and will be, rewarded...

[boxster]

29. Again, it is very easy to review the Iraq situation in hindsight and

claim everyone should have taken the high road then. Had all of the Democrats voted against the war and it unfolded as I described in the other thread, we would have lost huge numbers of seats in Congress, I guarantee it.

Courage is not enough in the face of 90% approval ratings.

And, again, as I've explained to a couple of people, I am not defending their actions. I was providing an alternative explanation for why they made the decisions they made.

Sticking to your beliefs in an ideal situation is one thing. Choosing to ignore intense public and political pressure at a time of crisis is quite another.

[dajabr]

32. I don't get the public pressure thing...

In the lead up, the polls were not skewed that heavily for war. There were millions in the streets.

The only explanation I'll buy is that it was a misjudgement based on political calculations - not leadership or responding to constituents.

Both sides are counting on you to rationalize and forget their betrayal.

For that, they should not be rewarded...

[boxster]

39. Have you really read any of my postings in this thread?

Obviously not.

From one above, "For the record, I was 100% against this joke of a war. I cannot believe people could be ignorant enough to buy the Saddam-9/11 link and I will never understand the appeal of Bush and his fraud war."

Does that sound like I'm rationalizing anything?

Does that sound like I agree with this fricking war?

Protests in my state were nearly non-existent. The polls were 90%+ pro-war during the entire build-up. This is a very conservative state with an Air Force base as one of the largest employers. The political reality here is apparently much different than yours. Whether you "buy" that or not, it is the reality here and in many other conservative states.

Nowhere did I say I agreed with this viewpoint.

Nowhere did I say that we should "forget their betrayal."

Nowhere did I say they should be "rewarded".

Please bother to actually read my postings before you post next time.

[dajabr]

45. Yes, I have read your posts...

And, I'm not arguing with your personal feelings about the War.

But, the question is about our Candidates' votes, not yours. Why give any explanation at all if you're not trying to justify or rationalize their votes? What is your point then?

How do you explain the votes of Kerry & Lieberman? CT & MA are not conservative strongholds?

Don't answer. I don't want to put you in danger of rationalizing...

[boxster]

46. Ok, from now on, I won't bother posting unless I'm trying to rationalize

something. That makes a lot of sense.

I'm sorry, but claiming that I'm rationalizing (and therefore, supporting) this viewpoint, when I have so clearly stated my beliefs to the contrary, is ludicrous.

So, based on your logic, if I say, "Dean supporters think that Clark is a Republican, so people voted for Dean in the DU online poll. But, I think they're wrong about him being a Republican." means that I'm rationalizing (and supporting) why Dean voters voted for Dean, even though I said I didn't agree with why they did it.

That's ridiculous. Either you misread my posts and are covering your previous statements or you're being intentionally obtuse. You are still claiming that I'm rationalizing this, even though it's obvious I don't believe or support it.

What I was attempting to do was provide the original poster with a reason why SOME people in Congress may have voted for the war, because I knew full-well that supporters of the candidates who did, in fact, support the war, were not going to jump right out and tell her why. Supporters of the pro-candidates are going to avoid discussing the pro-war stances of their candidates like the plague.

I never said that this applies to EVERY single Congressperson. There are situations where this is indeed the case, and in our state, it is reality. Nowhere did I say that it applies everywhere. And nowhere did I say that it was the ONLY reason for every political decision ever made.

[HFishbine]

33. Right

So you recegnized the war as a joke, yet you state that a vote against it wouldn't have been politically "viable." So, either the elected representatives who voted for the war are not as smart as you (to have realized the sham) or they knew but voted out of poltical necessity.

What would you have done? Don't you deserve a representative as smart and principled as you? How about when it comes to president?

[boxster]

44. Yes, thank you so much for misreading my posts.

My point is that it is a political reality that had a Democrat Senator from a very conservative state voted against the war and the war been what it was advertised to be - meaning we found tons of WMD, blah, blah - said Democrat Senator would have found himself out of a job. Guaranteed.

I'm not justifying the fricking war.

I'm not justifying the belief that they were right in their decisions.

What I am saying is that it is a political reality out here in the middle of the red states. Bush still has more than 60% support here, EVEN NOW. This stupid war still has majority support here, EVEN NOW. That 60% would torpedo the campaign of said Democrat Senator had he voted against the war, EVEN NOW.

Don't you deserve a representative as smart and principled as you?

Don't be intentionally obtuse. Do you think Democrats who lived in Strom Thurmond's district had a smart, principled representative? Do you think the Democrats in Minnesota are happy Coleman won?

Of course that's what we want. Is that always what you get? If so, congratulations. Do you suppose that I can personally decide by myself if that happens here? Not in a state where Bush killed Gore 63/33, I can't.

[Terwilliger]

37. how does that explain all the no votes?

Kerry is Senator from Massachussets and Lieberman is Senator from Connecticut...Repub strongholds?

The fact is, the people who voted against the war resolution had one thing the pink-tutu's apparently did not...conviction.

[jiacinto]

8. I understand it

But the reality of the time was much, much different. Many of those Democrats were in states that Bush carried where there was more support of the war. And although I disagree with their votes I understand the rationale behind it.

[RapidCreek]

25. I'm curious

Would you understand it if Bush had suggested we attack China and the Dems had voted to give him carte blanche to do so? Is it understandable and expedient only if a defenseless nation is chosen to crush and hijack? Would it be understandable if there were any possibility of our nation being hit with nukes or biological weapons? Is it understandable only if the civilian deaths incurred are not Americans?

To me this sort of logic sounds allot like that of those who allowed Hitlers ascension. In my opinion the reason our reps get 150k plus a year is to educate themselves on the issues, stand on principal, vote accordingly....and except the consequences. What other reason is there to pay them this amount? So what if they lost their seats for undertaking their job responsibilities in an honorable fashion? People may have voted for a Republican if they had.....but the writing would be on the wall right now, wouldn't it? There would be no confusion on where the Democrats stand. This distinction in the next election cycle would have won them the presidency and gained them the majority in both houses. The likelihood of that occurring now....has been severely lessened. What they did has nothing to do with rationale.

RC

[Sterling]

47. You sum it up very well.

Best post so far on this thread.

[ieoeja]

14. My Reply

To answer your first and second questions: I was ambivalent about the war at that time and paid (and still pay) little attention to who voted for it.


GIVEN: We KNOW Iraq possessed WMD at one point.
GIVEN: We KNOW Iraq used WMD at one point.
GIVEN: We had no reason to believe Iraq no longer had these weapons.
GIVEN: As of 10 Oct 2002 Iraq had for some time refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.
GIVEN: Iraq supported terrorists who hated the US and our allies.
THEN: There existed the very real possibility that Iraq might supply terrorists with WMDs.


On the other hand:

GIVEN: The Islamic Revolutionary Movement supports the expansion of fundamentalist Islamic theocracy through violence.
GIVEN: The Islamic Revolutionary Movement is far more likely to target the US and most of our allies than other Islamic terrorist groups.
GIVEN: The Iraqi Ba`ath Party was an effective (if brutal) ally against the Islamic Revolutionary Movement.
GIVEN: The majority population in Iraq is Shi`ite and more inclined to support theocratic rule.
THEN: Taking out the power holding the lid on this powder keg struck me as fairly stupid.


However, this is hardly the first time I thought US foreign policy was stupid. And too often in the past we did, in fact, support people like the Ba`ath Party because they were fighting a worse enemy (communism) only to end up seeing them lose leaving us facing an unsurprisingly antagonistic populace.


To answer your third question, I do support statements that they believed this would force Iraq to readmit inspectors. And I do support statements that the readmission of inspectors suspended justification for the American-Iraqi War.

[dajabr]

16. In your theory...

Where does PNAC come in? :shrug:

[dolstein]

19. Right after the trilateral commission . . .

and immediately before the freemasons.

[dajabr]

21. If only the players in PNAC

Had as much sway over world events as those groups...

Looking forward to Pax Americana I suppose? Hope you're ready to see a lot of needless blood spilt on the alter of hegemon.

[ieoeja]

27. War After Suspension of Justification

GIVEN: PNAC calls for a military presence in the region to protect our access to oil.
GIVEN: PNAC openly advocated the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba`ath Party by military means.
GIVEN: Rumsfeld and Cheney were (are) members of PNAC.
GIVEN: We launched the war despite Iraqi cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors.
THEN: I think it highly likely this administration did so as called for by PNAC.


If you meant, "where does PNAC enter into my belief the war was justified", it doesn't. I disagree with PNAC altogether. That does not prevent PNAC and myself from supporting the same action for different reasons on occasion.

If you meant, "where does PNAC enter into the votes by the various candidates", I don't know. I am unaware of any affiliation between PNAC and any of the Democratic presidential candidates. Nor am I aware of any statements made by any Democratic presidential candidate with regard to that individual's support or opposition to PNAC.

[dajabr]

30. Dean has railed against Bush Admin "Idealogues"...

And apparently, Clark has made mention of them (just FYI...).

"That does not prevent PNAC and myself from supporting the same action for different reasons on occasion."

Fair enough...

[ieoeja]

34. Good Point

It's not about the Project or the members. It is about the stated goal: American hegemony. If they speak out against that, then they speak out against PNAC. And that is one thing I do like about both Dean and Clark.

Forty-plus years of Cold War entrenched the idea of a large standing military in the American psyche. Getting that out is going to take some doing, and everybody is going to think we're naive or looney at first.

[HFishbine]

35. Check your "givens"

Maybe the reason you are a little more understanding is because you are still operating with incorrect assumptions. I give you:

GIVEN: We KNOW Iraq possessed WMD at one point. (Yes, but no evidence after 1995.)

GIVEN: We KNOW Iraq used WMD at one point. (Yes, 1988)

GIVEN: We had no reason to believe Iraq no longer had these weapons. (Yes, we did. You may have and still dismiss those reasons, but they came in the form of Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, the IAEA, and Iraqi defectors)


GIVEN: As of 10 Oct 2002 Iraq had for some time refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. (Fair enough. Reacall though, they had not been asked to cooperate since inspectors were withdrawn in 1998. Recall also that Iraq had been cooperating with inspectors for months before Bush pulled the trigger.)


GIVEN: Iraq supported terrorists who hated the US and our allies. (To Quote Dennis Kucinich, "Hellooooooo..." I supose if by "allies" you mean Israel, and by terrorists, you mean Hezbola, then you're technically accurate, but is that a case for war? "We have to attack Iraq because they have some loose connection to an enemy of Israel?")

[ieoeja]

36. Tel Aviv by Bomblight

Yup. That's what I meant.

[JNelson6563]

42. Thank you for your answers

:-)

[GOPBasher]

24. No one voted for war.

They voted to give Bush the power to attack Iraq if he wanted to -- which he already had under the War Powers Act. So, they voted to give him some power that he already had anyway.

In fact, it can be argued that the vote actually limited his power, because it didn't allow him to attack Syria, Iran, or whomever else he wanted to bomb. But I don't think it that, either, because again, with the WPA, he has the authority to bomb anyone he chooses to.

[RapidCreek]

51. He may have had that power under the war powers act

...that is true. If he had sent US troops into Iraq under its articles....he would have done so alone...not with the chikenshit, sycophantic, hand licking complicity of those who currently label themselves Democrats. If they had, had any inclination to distinguish themselves from the fascist sitting in the White House, they could have done so.....a few did...and oddly they are thought of by many here as unelectable. Odd don't you think? The same sort of mentality which was responsible for Jesus being crucified.

Your argument lacks merit, in any case. Under the war powers act the president has the power to attack Syria, Iran "or whoever else he wanted to bomb" for sixty days following the initial congressional report of his intent to do so. (Also known as a Declaration of War) No where in H. J. RES. 114 has congress indicated that Bush should be prevented from Declaring war with Syria or Iran.

H. J. RES. 114 was enacted specifically TO GIVE the specific statutory authorization required in section 2(c) of the War powers act, as Bush neither issued a formal declaration of war nor was there a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

If our illustrious Democrats in Congress had not given Bush the statutory authorization required in section 2(c) of the war powers act, he would have been forced to isseu a formal Declaration of War upon Iraq or provide some proof that Iraq had attacked the United States.

RC

[FARAFIELD]

26. HI Julie

I thought after reading some of the "OFF SUBJECT" answers I would try to give you a thoughtful answer. First Im a liberal Democrat from California, Im living in North Carolina now though as i Complete a project. SO I do have a Senator (EDwards) who did vote for the War Resolution. First, how do i feel about the Resolution? I didnt like it. I was quite sure that NO WMD's were there and that the rest of the info was hyped. BUT I felt that SADAAM was not someone that should be around any longer. I think we should have finished the Job 12 years ago. SO i didnt feel any hesitation with getting rid of him at all. The methodology that the Idiot Prez used will be his undoing I think we all can agree on that. But i also feel as a person of faith and former Military Member that we need to step in to offer Huminatarian Support when people are getting their asses kicked around the world. I.E. We stopped the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and going to Liberia was right. Purely on Humanitarian grounds we should have gone. Just because the President lied about WMD's and such isnt enough of a reason NOT to go. As I said he will pay the price for that. Now on the Subject of Edwards, he did it because the PREZ was popular and he wanted to save his ass. Thats my opinion. I dont like that he did it, but thats the way it goes. SOme of our guys (DEM SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN) will do things that we dont like once in a while. They choose that for Political Expediencey which is Never right. SO in that way i was closer to Wellstones VOTE Against because at least he made it on Principle not just to get re-elected. I will always be for this country using its power to stop thousands (or 100 of thousands) from getting killed. I believe it is a much nobler thing to do than fighting for land, loot, or because a king tells them. AMericans will always want to set other people free. Nothing can take that part of the VIctory away from us. As for the predictions of WMD's and the other LIES the American voters will hold the Republicans responsible. Take care

[Karenina]

38. "AMericans will always want to set other people free."

The first thing Americans need to do is set themselves free from the death dealing *cabal that has taken over their government.

"Nothing can take that part of the VIctory away from us."

There has been NO VICTORY so far, just pain, death, destruction and economic ruination. I hope I have not misunderstood the intent of this post. American voters have been DISENFRANCHISED by fraud and the ARROGANT idea of exporting a "democracy" she no longer has is the height of hubris and stupidity. I don't not mean to be harsh (yes, I do for honesty's sake) but WTF do you think is going on here?

[JNelson6563]

43. you are mighty honest

Enjoyed your response tremendously because it was so plain-spoken and honest. Thanks.

Julie

[FARAFIELD]

48. Thanks

I wasnt debating the merits of WHY BUSH wanted to go to WAR, I knew those were BOGUS. Just saying they are better off now.

[Andy_Stephenson]

31. I agree

"I'd like to smack each and every one of our Dems who fell for this business from Team Bush."

[mpsteve]

49. I do not support the war, but your man cannot win! HELLO!!!

[tjdee]

50. John Edwards works for the people of North Carolina.

You may remember North Carolina as the state which wasn't carried by Bill Clinton (ever) or Al Gore, and who pressed upon us such luminaries as Jesse Helms, George W. Bush, and Liddy Dole.

Edwards, IMO, is the only one with a valid 'excuse' for voting for the war. No I didn't support it at the time, but I realized that a)he was voting as the majority of his state would have wanted, and b)he was of course being politically expedient. Hell, maybe he really thought Saddam was a threat.

I do not feel this is a deal breaker for him, as he handles all inquiries about it very well. And, for me, his pluses outweigh the one negative.

[jpgray]

52. No, I'm not at all happy with anyone's Iraq vote

It was a shameful resolution, and those connected to it are shamed by association. Refusing to support anyone who voted for the war is something that just isn't realistic--politicians are all for political expediency. It gives them too much credit to assume moral implications entered as much into it as some people think. For that reason, I don't see much difference on the issue between Kerry and Dean, though many see a huge gulf. Kerry falls lower in my estimation on the war because his relative equivocation is combined with a "yes" vote, while Dean's are just by themselves.