Does Anybody Understand This ?

[stewert]

Back when the democrats in congress and the senate voted for the war, they did so based
on phony intelligence. They got the intelligence Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted them
to get. That is what they based their vote on, the doctored up intelligence. The Bush administration
had control of the intelligence, and they cherry picked the intelligence that made the case for war
look good. hell they even set up a special agency (OSP) to put out phony intelligence.

So they cast their vote based on the intelligence they had at the time. Yet I don't see any
democrats on tv explain this when some right-winger points out they voted for the war.

WHY ?

They should explain to the right-wingers that they made their vote based on the cooked up phony
intelligence they had at the time.

I don't think they should have given Bush a blank check like they did, but once the war started
it would be political suicide to vote against more money for the troops etc. so Bush would have
got all the money he needed either way. They are going to approve the $87 billion so if they had
not given him a blank check it would not have made one bit of difference.

Democratic Attacks -

I am also disappointed to see democrats here attack people like John Kerry (and others) because
he voted for the war. He made his vote based on the information he had at the time, this monday
morning quarterbacking from democrats is disturbing. We should not be attacking our candidates,
that is the republicans job.

These attacks are expected by republicans, but I am surprised democrats are doing it. I understand
you may think you are helping your candidate, in reality you are not helping him/her. When I see
someone attack my favorite, it does not and will not sway my vote, all it does is make me mad at you
for attacking a democratic candidate. So all you have done is piss me off, it will not change my vote.

Let's say I like John Kerry in the democratic primary. Then someone attacks him because he voted
for the war, if I decide to vote for Kerry, your attack will not change my vote.

But if you point out why I should vote for Dean or Clark, without the negative attacks on Kerry, I
might change my vote. I just ignore the negative attacks on the candidate I like, so you are wasting
your time and energy doing it.

I am now undecided, I may vote for Kerry, Dean, or Clark. I will decide who to vote for based on
the platform they have, negative attacks on any of them will be ignored. I plan to vote for the guy
who has the best liberal ideas. And I will not be attacking any democratic candidates, I will leave
that to the republicans. The fact that they did or did not vote for the war is meaningless to me. Hell
Dean just says he would have voted against the war, how do we know that for sure, when he did
not have to vote since he was not in congress or the senate.

Anybody agree with any of that, lol.

[Skittles]

1. uh

the problem I have with votes for the war is that WE knew this lying, thieving misadministration could not be trusted. Would YOU have voted for that war? I MOST CERTAINLY WOULD NOT and it bothers me that ANY Democrat could buy such utter garbage.

[bryant69]

7. Wel, there was Clinton

Former President Clinton painted a picture of Iraq that was largely the same as the one President Bush painted. Frankly since shortly after the Gulf War there has been a perception that Saddam Hussein was seeking WMDs (or more WMDs) and that he was a threat to the region and to the US. Democrats and Republicans both believed this (although Greens, as I understand it, did not). So when President Bush said something everybody already thought, they kind of bought it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[nannygoat]

57. Maybe Clinton's assessment in 1998 was based on intelligence

garnered in 1998! Not like * who based his assessment in 2002 on intelligence from 1998... A lot can happen in 4 years. If * wasn't sure of the intelligence he should have left the inspectors in there and not gone to war when he did.

Edited for spelling!

[jmowreader]

76. The intelligence didn't matter to Bush

Bush needed a war. Iraq was the best option--Saddam's a known asshole, Iraq supposedly couldn't fight back, it would have been cheap, Bush's friends wanted the oil. Look how easily we whupped up on them in 1991! North Korea was a bad alternative because they have a good army with probably the best logistical tail of any army in the world, including ours. Syria would have been bad because most people don't know Assad. Saudi needs to get the shit kicked out of it, but you don't shoot your dad's best friend.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're basing estimates of soldier morale on fighting an army that was conducting an occupation it really didn't want to do. Oh hell yeah the Iraqi army was a pushover in Desert Storm--"if you capture us does that mean we don't have to sit in a hole waiting for you to come kill us?" In this war, Private Mohammad's mom was in the line of fire. You're gonna fight hard to save your mom. We shot Private Ali's dad; you can't be serious if you don't think Private Ali's gonna get his platoon together and start racking ass on Americans.

If we wouldn't have had a war? The press would have noticed that a few things were missing...Osama, the anthrax terrorist, the Clinton surplus. Put a war on, and all of a sudden the press isn't asking piddlyass little questions like "how in fuck did you spend it all five times?" And the obvious follow-up question, "are you the dumbest fuck who ever drew breath in the history of civilization, or do you just look that way?"

[stewert]

9. Skittles, You Did Not Address my Point !

If I was in the senate, and I was given cooked up intelligence showing a country was a threat
to the usa, I might have voted for the war.

We NOW know the intelligence was crap, at the time of the vote the democrats in the senate
and the house did not know THEN what they know NOW.

You did not address my main point, of course I would not vote for the war today, because NOW I
know it was cooked up intelligence. But at the time, the democrats in the senate and the house
cast their vote based on what they knew at the time.

We thought it was phony THEN, but we did not know for sure because we could not see the
intelligence.

Unless I am missing something, they cast their vote at the time based on the phony intelligence
they had at the time.

Answer this question:

If you were in the senate, and you were given intelligence you thought was accurate, that said
N. Korea was planning to get a nuke and attack the USA with it, would you not vote to attack
them first ?

Or would you wait till they dropped it on New York and 5 million Americans were killed ?

I would vote to attack them first.

Like I said, we NOW know the Bush intelligence was phony, but at the time of the actual vote, we
did not know it, did we ?

Are you saying the democrats in the senate and the house knew it was phony intelligence when
they made their vote ?

If you are, that would be news to me.

[Skittles]

20. but stewart

I *ALWAYS* KNEW IT WAS CRAP AND THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT TOO.

And YES they probably did know it was crap - they just jumped on the war bandwagon for fear of losing their seats. SHAME ON THEM.

[libertad]

32. I agree with Skittles, we knew about it, they can read and hear

the same reports we read and heard.

[magnolia]

60. I don't believe they knew it was crap!

You aren't in congress...you don't know what they were told, or what they knew! Anyway...to a certain extent you have to be able to trust the people you work with.

Regardless...when they voted on the war, they were under the impression that war would be a last resort.

It's easy to sit back in your chair and spout off opinions. I think it's a little different to actually have to make a decision that will effect millions of lives. They made a huge mistake trusting someone they should have been able to trust, trusting intel they should have been able to trust. They've admitted it...let it go and let's move on...for God's sake!!!!

[Classical_Liberal]

25. Actually the CIA were disputing Bush even then

It doesn't wash. Kerry would have been privy to that info. The other problem is that Kerry has never admitted that his vote was wrong so you are defending someone who isn't defending himself.

[Brian Sweat]

62. Yes, we knew that the info was BS and they should have known,

but that doesn't mean they cannot use the fact that the Bush Administration was feeding them bad intelligence when the right says they voted for the resolution.

[Brian Sweat]

63. Also, the fact that the right is trying to use the fact that the Dems

voted for the resolution is a bit of a tell. It indicates that they too knew the info was BS all along.

[NoKingGeorge]

66. A vote FOR war ?

It was only a vote to give him some leverage when he went to follow up with the UN. He dropped the follow up part and did as he was told in invading Iraq.

[libertad]

30. You are right, if WE could see that it was phony intelligence, what

does that say about THEM? (Most of us are not experts or insiders.)

[tjdee]

2. We had LESS intelligence than they did, and we knew.

I got no beef with the warries, as I'm supporting one of them, but I don't think "we had that phony intelligence" is going to cut it. Well, maybe it would, if one of them would say it, but they haven't.

They're riding that horse right into the ground. Not sure why. Maybe to look as if they're not flip flopping?

[Speed8098]

3. Yes, I agree 100%

I have said this before when someone would attack a candidate for voting for the resolution.

IMHO they voted based on what little intelligence was given to them by the BFEE.

The same with the Patriot Act. I am disgusted that our leaders would vote for something they didn't even get to read completely, but the patriotic fervor that followed 9/11 was enough motivation for them to think they were doing the right thing.

They should explain to the right-wingers that they made their vote based on the cooked up phony intelligence they had at the time.


I too wish they would speak out about this.

[Skittles]

8. patriotic fervor?

that's how you would excuse these inexcusable votes? I expect better from my leaders.

[Speed8098]

12. With the intelligence they had, what did you expect?

From what they knew, Saddam had ratcheted up his weapons program.
We were still reeling from the attack on the WTC and the * junta took advantage of that tragedy to manipulate our leaders.

Should they have tried to dig deeper to verify the claims made by the repubs? Yes.

But I do not hold them in contempt for falling for the same BS that 90% of Americans fell for? No.

It is spilled milk. We need to focus on the group that lied to get their votes for the war.

* has to go at all costs, otherwise we are royally screwed.

[Skittles]

21. OMG

Nobody could truly have believed the garbage "evidence" presented by this piece of shit administration. COME ON, IT WAS LAUGHABLE.

[On the Road]

4. Well, I UNDERSTAND It

I don't completely agree. There are grounds to give democrats a free pass on a war vote. It does call into question their judgment and the sources of information they rely on.

Clinton made similar comments about Iraq's capabilties and intentions. It came from both sides of the aisle, and this probably made it easier to accept.

[RobinA]

36. At the Very Least,

it was out there well before the war that people who get paid to know these things did not agree that Saddam was a threat and how much of a threat he was. Whole agencies were known to be skeptical. I'm no expert on how Congress works, but if I'm John Kerry, can't I go to the CIA and say "brief me" on this? Send me a paper? All anybody would have to do is read freakin' Newsweek to know there were serious questions about the war. Frankly, I think the Dems have pretty much stopped thinking at all. They certainly are afraid to say anything since 2000.

[The White Rose]

52. The Democratic Party has lost it's confidence.

Forty years of Congressional control made us complacent, and, ever since we lost it, against all good judgement there's been a sneaking but growing suspicion that the Repubs may really reflect the desires of the American people. I think that, while this administration's venality and duplicity are apparent, many senators and representatives allowed their lack of self-confidence to sow doubts in their minds; what if Bush was right? What if WMD and the plans to use them were found? Even worse, what if they did nothing and there was another 9/11? Rather than face being wrong and threat of decimation at the polls I believe that most Dems decided to let cowardice win the day, while the more knowlegeable, and experienced Dems (Kerry and Graham for example) realised that Bush's reconstruction "plans" would make him vulnerable after the war and took the pragmatic course.

In other words, some Dems chickened out, and others decided to give Bush enough rope to hang himself. Unfortunately, in the process they enabled Bush et al to kill hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, and helped set a precedent that has re-set the clock of international relations and law to the 1930's. Great work folks...

[Clete]

74. I think most who voted for the resolution knew the

intelligence wasn't sterling, but they voted for it anyway thinking it would be over soon. Many supposedly on our side are part of the Washington insiders coven. They don't have just their constituents interests in mind. I would wish we could do a lot of cleaning in Congress the next several elections. I think we are going to have to fix the elections first though.

[La_Serpiente]

5. I think a lot of people were just pissed off about the war vote

I don't have many things against Kerry. He's a pretty good guy. Shrewed. Smart.

However, I think many people can't get passed the fact that Kerry voted for the War Resolution. I mean, if anyone reads it, it shows that Bush didn't need a UN approval. Look. I think it will take some time for this to blow over. However, the fact is people are still pissed off about it.

Even if Kerry does win the Democratic nomination, he will not only be competing with those on the right but also those on the left. Democratic Activists have become fed up with Washington Democrats that have taken us for granted and we're not going to have anymore of it.

There is always going to be that sizable minority that will be pissed off with Kerry if he gets the nomination. Basically, he is going to have to earn those person's votes back. He's going to have to talk to them and explain to them not in the way that if you don't vote for me, you'll have more of Bush, but in a way that shows that he respects their vote and will not leave them behind. If he can talk to them and ask them that vote for him in a decent, humble way, then he'll gain their respect.

[alfredo]

6. One thing you must remember, bush was only sharing intelligence with the

Republican leaders, so the Dems only got what the Republican leaders wanted them to hear. How much truth was told to those on the intelligence committees, I don't know, but as far as the rank and file is concerned, they got very little good info.

[Eloriel]

17. Once again, that doesn't wash

As has already been pointed out, 95% or maybe more of DUers KNEW there was no substance to the "reasons" to go invade Iraq. We knew, in fact, what was actually behind the war on Iraq.

We elected them to exercise good judgment, do their homework, know what the hell they're voting on and why, and do their best representing the good of the people and the country.

Instead, we elected too many people in Washington who:

1. Won't listen to their constituents in the millions
2. Don't give a damn about the U.N. Security Council and multilateralism
3. Give Bush the benefit of the doubt and whatever the hell he wants again and again and again (with a few -- and very few -- notable exceptions) despite awesome evidence over 2 years that he can't be trusted about anything
4. Care more about polls (showing a "popular president" and a "popular war") than about the good of their country
5. Care more about their Presidential aspirations and/or re-election chances
6. Feel they are too weak and ineffective to ward off lies about their patriotism or lack thereof
7. Don't give a fig about the LIVES of American military men and women or innocent Iraqis or billions of taxpayer dollars spent on an unnecessary, illegal, immoral, unjustified and unjustifiable freaking WAR.

As far as getting "only what the Republican leaders wanted them to hear," somehow WE ferreted out the truth, dammit. I expect no less from our elected so-called "leaders."

The one person I forgive is Congressman Murtha, whom I'd never heard of before, but who had the humility, honesty and intestinal fortitude to actually apologize for his war vote.

We are now mired down in Iraq for years to come, in all probability, and for absolutely NO good reason. Hell, there's even some evidence that the oil they lusted after was an illusion.

No forgiveness here. At all.

Eloriel

[quinnox]

10. There was a recent poll

that showed many Democrats agree with you. About a quarter of Dems wanted a candidate that supported the war (gasp, this would be a shocker to some on DU), a little more(4% more to be exact) wanted a candidate that opposed the war, and the majority said it didn't matter.

[displacedtexan]

11. what this post doesn't include...

is the timing problem dems had in the run up to the war vote last year. if i remember correctly, the vote coincided with the 2002 election season, which made dems vulnerable to attacks from both sides.

we all now that repubes did this on purpose, but the sheeple weren't expecting the prez and his cronies to lie to congress; frankly, the sheeple weren't ready to believe that bush would lie, at all.

so what were dems to do? claim that they didn't believe colin powell and brit intel (which still had street cred at that time)and risk being voted out of office, or vote for a resolution which included going to the UN and hoping the world would reign in the freak monkey?

neither choice was good, but fewer dems in office is, imho, worse than voting for the resolution.

the sheeple have begun to come around now, and it's time for dems to speak up, but it would have been impossible last year to penetrate the flag-wrapped stupor most sheeple were in.

while i applaud dennis k's anti-war vote, i feel that he only appeals to the 'choir,' those of us who did not need to be swayed in the first place.

[stewert]

18. U Make Some Great Points displaced texan

They had this vote right before the 2002 mid-term elections, the dems would probably have
lost even more seats had they voted against the war. Especially since then it was not really
know that Bush was a proven liar, and the Brits still had credibility. We have to remember Tony
Blair was trusted, and he was making the same claims the BFEE were.

Look at Max Cleland, he lost both legs and an arm and the repukes called him a saddam supporter
for voting against the war. They even ran a tv ad with saddams picture and Clelands picture in it.

They hoped dems would vote against the war, because they planned to use it against them in their
re-election bids. It was a Karl Rove dirty trick plan, I think a lot of dems voted for the war to save
their jobs, and to keep the repukes from winning their seats.

[displacedtexan]

22. i think you've articulated the problem perfectly!

dems are spending a lot of time blaming the candidates when they (we) should all be blaming rove and ralph reed and the rest of the bloody-handed gang.

this issue is rather like the pre-emptive strike analogy, too: even if you know for sure that you're about to be attacked, do you risk being labeled a bully and hope for forgiveness if all doesn't go well, or do you let your country be attacked and wait for sympathy?

history has shown us (golda meier) that waiting (even if it means many deaths) gives you later credibilty when you retaliate. bush, otoh, has blown any future US credibility by crying wolf.

[RobinA]

40. No To Blaming Rove

Look, Rove's good at what he does. But that doesn't excuse Dems for falling in line every time. If Rove et al can get away with pulling these scams they deserve the White House. The Dems have to take control. And I'm not just talking about the war vote. This administration has the Dems on the run. They need to be as good as Rove. They need to be better than Rove. This is politics, not kindergarten. Clinton kicked Repub butt all over town. Do you mean to tell me that he's the ONLY Dem who can play politics anymore?

[calm_blue_ocean]

27. Different opinion

I agree that the Democrats had their finger in the wind on the resolution vote.

While this may have helped them in the short run (that is, the 2002) -- it really hurts the party in the long run (2004 elections).

People are only now beginning to come to the conclusion that the Iraq War was wrong and a bad idea. The Democratic Party is not trying to lead public opinion in this area, rather they are following behind public opinion. If the Democratic Party had taken a continuing and leading role as skeptics of the Iraq War, then the public opinion polls might even be a lot more anti-war now.

IMO, this is why many observers currently accuse the Democratic party of having insufficient backbone and/or leadership. (See, eg, "In the Army Now" article in the current issue of Harper's magazine, Time cover story "Where Have All The Demcrats Gone?").

Sometimes leadership means that you lead opinion polls, rather than follow them. Sometimes leadership can cause short term political damage. Sometimes leadership is an act of courage.

[Terwilliger]

29. that's exactly correct

Sometimes leadership means that you lead opinion polls, rather than follow them. Sometimes leadership can cause short term political damage. Sometimes leadership is an act of courage.

Very true :bounce:

[Terwilliger]

23. Yes, and Kerry et al appealed to the warmongers and simpletons

so that he and the Democrats led by poll and fearful hysteria, NOT because they knew what was right and told the American people to calm their fears

Every Dem apologist here wants the Democratic party to be cleansed by the fact that Bush is such a fucknut, but the damn truth is far more bitter: Democrats knew EXACTLY what they were doing last year when *some* of them (I might add that it was only some Dems who voted YES...were the NO voters all voted out of office? Pray tell) voted for the blank check. To blame this on lack of proper information, or American fear is just as much propaganda as Fox news.

[Dhalgren]

13. There were 23 Senators

who voted against the resolution and well over a hundred Congress-persons. They would not vote to give this shameful "blank check" to Bush and none of the Dems who voted for it should get any kind of "free pass" for facilitating and empowering Bush and his neo-cons. Senator Byrd worked tirelessly to convince his fellow Dems not to vote for that dispicable resolution, but they laughed at him and ridiculed his "read" of the politics of the situation. Now, they realize that Byrd and the others were right, so they want a pass on their "mistake". No fucking way.

[calm_blue_ocean]

14. Voting for the Iraq War resolution was a bad thing to do

If there was supposed to be concrete evidence of WMD's then it was Congress's proper role to demand this evidence.

Also, it is not clear to me why Congress had to pass any sort of resolution so far in advance of the Iraq invasion itself. Why couldn't the resolution have been debated and voted on in March 2003, after all of the "evidence" was in?

Congress, at the very least, should have made its way-too-early resolution contingent on UN support (this is what I would have demanded had I been a Congressperson). By UN support, I mean UN military. If I recall correctly, the Bush Administration was saying that they were going to convince the UN, so it would have been difficult for the Bush administration to complain about such a condition.

I would still vote for any of the Democratic candidates over *, of course. However, voting for the resolution was extremely bad judgement and it is a definite minus for any candidate who voted for it (Kerry) or would have voted for it (perhaps Clark).

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Like nailing jelly to a wall

The problem is that the contents of confidential, high-security briefings can not be released to the public. This makes it very easy for the White House to tell Congress anything it wants them to hear. The Senators and Representatives can describe it, comment on it, and debate about it, but they can't divulge it.

Presidents Carter and Clinton do not seem to have abused that assumption of secrecy; on the other hand, literally every Republican since Nixon (and possibly excepting Ford) has used it as a lever between the representative branch and its constituents. And there is no realistic possibility of avoiding it, since when the President deigns to address the House and Senate, they must listen.

I have to assume that after 9-11, Bush "informed" the Senators and Representatives with fictitious intelligence designed to get them to do his bidding. This is completely in line with what we know about Bush and his cronies.

I don't give the Democrats a pass, either, but imagine the situation they are in: Anything they say might be an act of treason, they have to accept being bamboozled on at least one level, and they have no control over the message.

If they later choose to fight it, they are accused of "flip-flopping", and usually end up looking uninformed. Looking stupid. So, over time, it has become important to appear tough. It hides the fact that the legislators are treated like mushrooms -- kept in the dark and fed manure. They should speak out more, but who wants to isolate themself and face possible criminal prosecution?

The President and the Executive Branch have almost exclusive control over issues of national security and military power; the Congress is simply a rubber stamp, and have never been given the full details of any war they've agreed to, not even going back to the skirmishes right after the Revolutionary War was over.

This issue has never been systematically addressed by the public and in the press, not even by the progressive press, let alone by the nightly news.

Our representatives didn't know, and we don't know, and probably never will. Bush & Co. formulated a strategy, cooked up a story that they then camouflaged as sensitive military secrets, and we have to live with the fallout.

And they know they will get away with it.

--bkl

[Dhalgren]

16. Many Senators and Congresspersons

voted against the resolution - they all could have, but didn't. They have no excuses. They have gotten into bed with the neo-cons, now they want out. Fine, get out of the freakin' bed! But don't try to tell us that they tricked you under the covers - it just won't wash.

[displacedtexan]

26. constituent polling factor

how many senators polled their constituents before voting? probably all of them. remember, all politics (and re-election) is local. what's good for me wouldn't have gotten a senator in another state re-elected last year.

preaching to the choir won't defeat bush in 2004.

[Terwilliger]

33. so...Kerry's constituency wanted Bush to have a blank check?

I guess Wellsone's Minnesotans were much more cynical :eyes:

[Dhalgren]

41. Yeah

and Byrd's West Virginia is such a hotbed of progressive, liberal ideology.

When it comes to decisions regarding the actions of the US in relation to an illegal war, the Senator or Congressperson ought not to poll their constituants, but should make principled stands and tell their constituants why they voted as they did. This wasn't a vote for some sort of domestic issue that would be of primary importance to only the constituancy of one or another official - this was a life and death matter of national concern. No, they get no "pass" here.

[Dogmudgeon]

42. Excuses, or autopsies?

I figured there'd be a lot of people who would just say, "no excuses -- let's punish something!" My post was an explanation, not a call for retribution. If we don't know where the problem comes from, we'll just be striking out blindly. Think about it -- have any of the calls from the Left to "punish" a politician ever resulted in anything other than defeat, regress, and loss?

The fact is that we can't expect our legislators to develop "backbone" if we don't support them before crises hit. A lot of people, especially people who consider themselves "hip", are too affectedly cynical to bother to vote, let alone to voice their support for politicians who share their points of view. I think the dissenting votes, cast at great personal risk, show that there is much more backbone than we realize. It is our duty to make our wishes known. When we show our reps that we will back them up, they will find the courage in a big hurry.

How do you think the Bushistas got into power? Dozens of thugs stormed the Miami election office, roughing up at least two election workers and shutting downthe count. Hundreds of thugs from LoudCitizen, Inc., surrounded the US Naval Observatory and made noise night-and-day to intimidate Gore into submission. And who came to Gore's aid? "We" -- the left -- got it together too late, still sniffing that Gore had to "earn our vote" while Bush was busy stealing our Republic.

How many of us have ever even spoken with our state reps, let alone the legislators we send to Washington?

We also can't expect very much from a system that encourages the Executive branch to deceive legislators. Too many people think that amending the constitution needs to be saved for the important issues, like outlawing gay marriage and instituting Christian prayer in public schools.

Bush opponents have been without significant popular support, the law is against them, and the press decides what people have to say about it. I don't blame Kerry for wimping out, but, yes, I was quite happy to see Kucinich stand up for what we believe in. It will affect my vote, but only in its positives.

You're angry? Good! Pick up the phone and call one of your legislators, and tell him or her that you support (or don't support) certain resolutions, bills, and laws. Even if your rep is conservative. (You may also want to say that if Bush comes up for impeachment, that you'd vote to impeach and convict.)

I don't count political survival as cowardice. The rage for punishment is best saved for when Bush is on trial.

--bkl

[Terwilliger]

47. hahahahahahaha.....what a joke

Just exactly how do you think Bush will "go on trial" with Democrats who have no backbone?

The vicious little cycle of less-than-acceptable politicians is self-fulfilling...since eveything they do that's wrong is excused.

[Dhalgren]

49. I am not "punishing"

anyone. I won't support Bush, because I disagree with everything he stands for. I won't support anyone who has shown support for Bush's war. The Kerrys and the Edwards and Gephartds all made their decisions based upon whatever it was they based them on - fine. I am now making my decisions regarding the current political contests. This has nothing to do with "punishment" - I don't care why these Dems. voted to empower Bush - they did it, now I will make my choices accordingly.

[CWebster]

19. A good number of Kerry's constituients

weren't buying the cooked up intel. It was more than obvious that team Bush was on a mission, and that Kerry was unable or unwilling to discern that only points to his own failings.

It is about more than ousting Bush--it is about installing a better choice for the Democrats.

[never cry wolf]

24. Didn't the resolution contain wording to the effect...

... that shrub would exhaust all diplomatic means first before sending troops?? Obviously, that was a big lie but not one easily discerned at the time.

I think that many viewed the resolution as an important means to warn Sadaam and force him into cooperation and that the actual use of military force would not be taken as lightly as it was.

Just my thoughts. I knew the intel was bullcrap.

[CWebster]

35. Bush was just going through the motions

to lend it some sort of official credibility-but there was no mistaking his intent. Those drums of war were banging 24/7.

If you knew the intel was bull, then the ruse of diplomacy was just as obvious.

[msmcghee]

28. Here's my take on that.

Many dem pols who voted for the resolution had no thoughts about the morality of it all. They wanted to because they sensed a majority of Americans, whipped up by Bush's* "Dead or Alive" rhetoric, wanted to decorate their SUV's with American flags and see dead Arabs in the streets on the evening news - as payback for 9/11.

They also wanted to cover their asses with their more peace-loving constituents. So they allowed Bush* to provide that cover for them. Naturally, they don't want to tear down that cover now because they still may need it.

They still believe their re-election chances depend on supporting the war - or at least having a good excuse to do that. They are worried that another terrorist attack - or finding Saddam or bin Laden - or finding WMD - will put them on the wrong side of the flag wavers and other "morans" (and especially their more warlike opponents running for office) who will brand them as whimps and traitors unwilling to defend our nation and avenge the death of the WTC 3000.

What you are seeing is the politician two-step.

[displacedtexan]

31. astute observation!

dems have a real shot if they can convince the sheeple that they are TOUGH.

once elected, a dem can recall FDR and tell the sheeple that we have to stop being afraid; we have to reach out to the world as 'the good guys' and really act like the good guys. walking the walk...

[msmcghee]

37. Your post made me think about . .

. . the radio programs I listened to back in the forties when I was little kid. The Lone Ranger, Tom Mix, Sky King, Lash Larue, The Green Hornet, etc.

These were all good guys who walked the walk. The bad guys were bullies and cheats and crooks. Each episode ended with the bad guys getting their just desserts. Color me nostalgic.

[CWebster]

39. Being tough

is standing up to Bush and calling him on the bull instead of allowing his machine to define the reality and shape consensus. The Democrats who jumped on the bandwagon are now exposed in the harsh light of day when unfettered reality comes into focus. They are debilitated though their complicitity and complacency.

We need inner strength and resolve on our side, because the situation in this country is increasingly dire.

[rucky]

55. Hold On A Sec

The events leading up to the War included over ONE MILLION people worldwide taking to the streets in protest of the invasion. At one time (about the same time as the vote, I believe) there was a poll which said 70% of Americans were opposed to Unilateral action in Iraq. Those numbers reversed after the first bombs dropped on Baghdad.

There was major resistance among the people during this march to war that was completely IGNORED by the media, the administration, and Congress. I was one of those marchers, and I feel majorly betrayed that - besides a few dissenting voices - the Democratic leadership largely ignored their constituency.

[msmcghee]

67. I was one of those yelling too.

What I'm saying is the Dem pols knew that our opposition would switch to "support the troops" as soon as the bombs started dropping. This was discussed on many talk shows prior to the start of hostilities.

Also, the pukes scored many points and arguably won several additional house seats in 92 and 96 by trashing Dems who strenuously opposed the first Gulf War.

This time they went with the choice that gave them the best chance of keeping their job. i.e. they played politics instead of taking the courageous, moral (but very risky) stand.

Do we condemn and blame them for that? That's not such an easy question for me to answer.

[pnb]

34. Why?

Because you are only guessing at their reasons for voting the way that did. Who say's that being fooled by phony intelligence was the reason they voted for war?

[treepig]

38. exactly - they weren't fooled

the rest of the world saw through the b.s., why couldn't these senators?

you don't get to be a senator (in most cases) by being a head-up-your-ass moron. they knew the intelligence was bogus. geez, even condi and powell are on tape pre-9-11 verifying that sanctions worked to prevent saddam from developing wmd's. everybody with any access to non-PNAC intelligence HAD to have known it was a bogus house of cards. now that's it's crumbling down on them, i have no sympathy whatsoever, be they rebup or dem.

[bread_and_roses]

43. Most of the rest of the world

as well as the progressive press, as well as our allies, seemed to know that Iraq was not an "imminent threat" - including its' closest neighbors, who surely would have had the most to fear if there were chemical and biological weapons. There is no way I can give the Dems who voted for the resolution a pass. It was obvious to anyone who looked that the admin was war-mongering. The Dems vote was pure political expediency, and unconscionable. However, it's all moot for me at this point...I'll end up working for the Dem candidate, who will probably be someone I don't really think much of, just so we can get a few little scraps from the table for working and poor people.

[Hamlette]

44. I agree with Stewert

Maybe someone could help me with a time line here but wasn't the vote in November? Didn't it say war was the last resort? Was there a vote after that?

Even so, what we were all hearing was: Saddam can attack us in 45 minutes. I didn't believe it but that was because I hate Bush and don't believe a word he says. A few things gave me pause: Blair supported the war. I didn't see him as in bed with Bush. Clinton wanted to get rid of Saddam. The expats/refugees were all saying Saddam had the weapons. When it became clear to me that Bush was going to war with or without the Dems I worried "what if all the dems vote against it and we get over there and Saddam does have all those WMD?" I figured the party wouldn't dig out of that for 20 years. (Akin to the republicans not wanting to go into WWII. They paid a huge price with Pearl Harbor and the only way they got the White House back was with a General, war hero.)

I suppose when the history books are written they will say that we believed Chalabi. It was a perfect storm. Bush wanted to believe him. And Bush wanted the oil. And we were living in fear because of 9/11. That's what it looks like to me.

I agree but I have NO idea why none of the candidates brings it up.

[msmcghee]

45. As a follow-up to post 28 above . .

. . They have made a political calculation weighing two outcomes.

1) They believe you (and I) won't vote for their Repuke congressional opponent in the next election because they voted for the resolution.

2) The believe they have a chance to take some votes from their Repuke congressional opponents in the next election because they voted for the resolution.

If they voted no, number two would go away. They want to get re-elected more than they want the US to do the right thing.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. exactly...congress was lied to....

[Terwilliger]

48. then why did DK vote no?

why did all the others who "were lied to" say NO?

[Philosophy]

50. Back to answering the original question

The candidates don't want to question the validity of their pro-war votes now because that would look bad one of two ways:

1. They are criticizing the abilities of our intelligence organizations.

2. Or they are admitting they were suckers.

[Terwilliger]

51. well, that's obvious...it's called 'backpedaling'

But the Pukes WILL call them on it, even though they have absolutely no moral backing to call Dems on their flip-flops, they will and sell it to the public as further proof that Dems aren't very smart.

[nannygoat]

58. Or they are admitting they were cowards...

Even I knew * and his cronies were a bunch of liars (and so did millions of others in this country and around the world). These Dems should have known, too, and had the courage to stand up to the evil *.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. because DK has the non violence gene...a true peacemaker...

[Evanstondem]

54. Your statements do not add up

I am also disappointed with the current level of attacks on fellow Dems, but the leading culprits are Kerry and Lieberman. Kerry has fallen well down my list of preferred candidates.

Dean was vocally against the War on Iraq well before it started. I believe that his pre-war criticisms of Dems for voting for Bush's war resolution were absolutely justified. He was encouraging fellow Dems to speak out against the war at a point where we were hoping that if might have some influence on Bush Administration actions. In addition, he generally did not single out specific candidates in his war-related criticisms.

I agree that Clark has been trying to run a positive campaign so far, and that is a point in his favor.

[paulk]

56. the Democrats who voted for the war resolution

were giving Bush the rope to hang himself with. They forced him to at least make a pretext of going to the UN, and they limited that particular resolution to just Iraq. I'm sure there was a certain amount of "cover your ass" in there too, what with the midterm elections coming up. Also, Bush could have gone ahead with the invasion without Congress's approval - so the Dems were in a lose /lose situation. Personally, I found Kerry's vote (and Hillary's)
extremely disappointing. It was a cold blooded political move.

About the WMD - as other posters have stated, even Bill Clinton thought they had at least something. I think the general perception in Washington was they Iraq had a small amount of WMD - not enough to be a threat, but enough to be in violation of the UN resolutions directed toward it.

Voting for the resolution with the caveats the Democrats were able to insert (last resort, etc.) put all the eggs in Bush's basket. The burden of explaining why we went to war is on his head now, and his head alone.

[opihimoimoi]

59. I remember Kerry saying his vote was largely due to the intelligence

recieved by the Bushys

which now turns out suspect at best.

[paulk]

61. Yes, and while I found Kerry's vote disappointing

it wouldn't prevent me from supporting him.

If you're in the Senate and the president, who has the intelligence services at his command, is telling you something - you'd pretty much have to put some credibility in what he says. Even if you personally don't believe, politically you'd have to - and once again, the burden of proof is on Bush. This is where they've really got him. Bush lied this country into war - and no amount of spin is going to change that...

[treepig]

69. who cares what bill clinton thought?

even though he may have been the best republican president ever, quite frankly, his foreign policy left a lot to be desired.

case in point, the "internationalization of islamic fundamentalism" - something that definitely contributed to 9-11:

Yet America’s role in backing the Mujahideen a second time in the early and mid-1990s is seldom mentioned — largely because very few people know about it, and those who do find it prudent to pretend that it never happened. Following the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 and the collapse of their puppet regime in 1992, the Afghan Mujahideen became less important to the United States; many Arabs, in the words of the journalist James Buchan, were left stranded in Afghanistan ‘with a taste for fighting but no cause’. It was not long before some were provided with a new cause. From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon assisted with the movement of thousands of Mujahideen and other Islamic elements from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs.

The Bosnia venture appears to have been very important to the rise of Mujahideen forces, to the emergence of today’s cross-border Islamic terrorists who think nothing of moving from state to state in the search of outlets for their jihadist mission. In moving to Bosnia, Islamic fighters were transported from the ghettos of Afghanistan and the Middle East into Europe; from an outdated battleground of the Cold War to the major world conflict of the day; from being yesterday’s men to fighting alongside the West’s favoured side in the clash of the Balkans. If Western intervention in Afghanistan created the Mujahideen, Western intervention in Bosnia appears to have globalised it.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE309A.html

[paulk]

70. well, he was president of the United States at the time

Usually what the President of the most powerful economic and military force on the planet thinks is considered important by most of the rest of the world.

Analysis by organizations like the Centre for Global Research are usually not considered credible sources of information by most researchers, since their "analysis" too often borders on "opinion".

And I'm not sure how Bosnia is germane to this discussion, anyway.

[treepig]

72. so it's just an "opinion" that clinton internationalized the islamic

fundamentalists?

if i had time, i'd point out the the same information in "real" news sources, but as you say it's not particularly germane to discussion.

BUT, it was YOU who first brought up clinton to justify the dem's votes on iraqs. in any event, clinton has plenty (actually much more) to answer for in iraq, than bosnia.

1. retaliatory bombing of baghdad on trumped-up charges that saddam tried to assasinate bush 1

2. sanctions that deliberately and knowing targeted iraqi civilians, not saddam, that caused the deaths of (at least) 500,000 children.

so is your point that we can now justify current and future atrocities just because St. Clinton was a monster? OK, whatever :crazy:

[paulk]

73. yes, it's just an opinion

if you have anything other than articles based on some Republican anti-Clinton hit piece, feel free to post them.

While the actions of Clinton that you cite were certainly questionable, I doubt he would have done them if he hadn't thought Iraq was a credible threat. Or maybe he did them for purely political reasons. Maybe he is a monster. I don't know.

One thing I do know is that he, as president, had access to information I didn't, and if he thought Iraq was a credible threat I'd be inclined to believe him. He has the benefit of the doubt.

Which takes us back to the Dems vote on the Iraq resolution. I'm not going to castigate Kerry or Edwards or any of the other Democrats for giving the president the benefit of the doubt. Even if that president is a lying, cheating piece of shit like George Bush.

As for your last sentence, the point you seem to think I made does not justify a response. Try to elevate your rhetoric beyond that of a schoolyard taunt.

[Pastiche423]

64. Does anyone here

remember our daily Senate Watch threads in LBN? In the six week lead up to the "war rag" vote, we watched and listened to the Senate floor. Senator Robert C. Byrd stood for hours on end, day after day, eloquently stating the reasons the invasion was WRONG!

Many senators reported the massive amount of emails, faxes and phone calls they were receiving for their constintuients begging them to vote NO. Those missives gave information gathered from different sources (including generals) as to the lies whistle ass et al were giving for the invasion.

No, not one lawmaker that voted to give whistle ass his war should get a free pass. They flunked representation 101 and do not deserve the people's votes, IMHO.

[NoKingGeorge]

65. aWol was given a bat, not permission to use it unless he and UN

Agreed that further wmd investigation would not work. The Congress gave him a baseball bat to carry in his back pocket so the UN would know that he had some leverage. He did not justify their trust when seeing that the UN wouldn't be fooled, he went to war anyway.

[Pastiche423]

68. Leverage?

They gave him his war!

There is no excusing them! If they had wanted to prevent the invasion, they would have voted NO!

[paulk]

71. voting no would not have prevented the invasion.

There is no excusing Bush. Direct your ire at the proper party.

[Sterling]

78. It might have but that is not the point

Real leadership might have prevented the attaack on Iraq. Fact is we looked to the Dems for that leadership and for the most part it was not there.

Time to put those Dems out to pasture and get some real leadership.

[Sterling]

77. Boy do I remember

I was banned because I was too outraged at H Clinton and Schumer. I thought since I voted for them and I was a Dem I had a right to voice my disgust but I was wrong.


Yes most DUers know then what our sellout Dems claim to only be learning now. Fuck all of them. If they screwed us then they will do it again.

Their are plenty of Dems without blood on their hands to choose from. right wing dems better figure it out and pick a compromise candidate to support or it will be the end of the party.

[oasis]

75. Stewert, your accounting of the situation makes sense to me. n/t