Would you have voted for the Iraq Resolution?

[goobergunch]

Poll question: Would you have voted for the Iraq Resolution?

It's October 2002, and you are a member of Congress. How would you have voted on the Iraq Resolution (H.J. Res. 114)?

I'm extremely disappointed that I feel like I have to ask this question, but I do. II'm voting an emphatic Nay.

[_NorCal_D_]

1. NAY

[mndemocrat_29]

2. NAY

[redqueen]

3. Clinton said he would have

I voted no, but Herr Big Dogg is the model for all things Democratic, right?

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Covering Hillary's sellout vote.

"Herr Big Dogg is the model for all things Democratic, right?"

He's the model for all things DLC.

[Aidoneus]

21. of course he would

the Clinton administration did, after all, spend much of the 90s bombing & starving Iraq. The only argument he/they could've put up was that they did a much better job of killing people in Iraq, without provoking the same level of international resistance that "Team W" has.

Or is that too heretically leftist to point out in these days where "BFEE" is the first and last answer to everything?

[BootinUp]

25. opinions welcome

all honest opinions are welcome except from freepers of course. What was your solution to Sadaam, inspections, WMD, chemical weapons, biological weapons, violations of treaty, etc.?

edited a misleading title

[theorist]

4. I knew Colin Powell was lying to Congress...

and that Bush would have done anything to redeem Poppy's humiliation.

[G_j]

5. considering

I, like so many others here, spent endless, exhausting hours lobbying Congress to vote against it.

..nay

[Terwilliger]

6. there is no way I would have trusted George Bush

there were TOO many examples of his lying and misinformation already out there

PLUS

I saw Uncovered the other night. If the people making these decisions had access to even the most trifling of data, they would have seen that Bush's assertions about Iraq's threat were unequivocally unfounded.

They voted for IWR for reasons other than the ones they claim now.

[GreenArrow]

26. they voted yeah

because the goals in Iraq, however poorly considered, derived, and implemented, were/are in accordance with long term American foreign policy.

As Madeline Albright said, "we think the price is worth it." And really, how does one put a price on unchecked global domination?

[Padraig18]

7. NAY

Just like MY Senator, Mr. Durbin did. :thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

8. Nay

They were always planning to invade, no matter what the UN said. They said so before any votes were cast.

[greatauntoftriplets]

9. I wonder who is voting "YEA".

My response was "NAY".

[RPG-7]

10. .

[RPG-7]

11. my guess..

Kerry and Gephardt fans :shrug:

[CWebster]

14. nah

that ain't who it is.

[Padraig18]

12. Kerry, Edwards and Gephart supporters would be my guess.

And the absolute paucity of comments backing up their votes fairly screams of 'shame'...

[VelmaD]

13. It's really easy...

for all of us to look back with our 20/20 hindsight and say we would not have voted for it.

[CWebster]

15. At the time of the vote

you would be hard-pressed to find one DUer who supported it. What has changed since then?

[VelmaD]

22. Unfortunately, DUers are not...

the majority of Americans. The majority, quite wrongly in my opinion, supported going to war, so it can't be any big surprise that the majority in Congress voted for it.

I agree with y'all that votign for it was the wrong thing to do but I'm honest enough to admit that if I had been put in that situation I don't know what I would have done. I would like to think I would have voted against it. But who knows what any of us would to until we are put to the test.

[redqueen]

35. Elected Leaders

"if I had been put in that situation I don't know what I would have done. I would like to think I would have voted against it. But who knows what any of us would to until we are put to the test."

Sure, you can't be expected to act in the best interest of your constituents.

They can't use that excuse.

Capitulating to whatever ridiculous nonsense motivated them to abdicate their responsibility and vote to give Bush unchecked power cannot be excused.

Their duty is to do right by the people. Those that voted with the opposition failed.

[VelmaD]

40. I knew this was gonna start something

What was I thinking? :-)

Anyway, "best interest of your consituents" is a subjective judgment. You and I agree on what was in their best interest. The problem is the majority of the American public seemed to disagree with us. They're learning the hard way that they were wrong.

What I wish is that we would hold elected officials' feet to the fire as hard on a variety of other issues as we are on this one.

[redqueen]

48. Not a dilemma, really

If a leader during the civil rights movement decided that despite their knowledge that enacting civil rights legislation was the right thing to do, still voted against a civil rights bill because they were pandering to ignorant constituents, would that hold water?

I guess the crux of it is, what do we expect from leaders? Leadership? Or obedience to polls / public sentiment? They were privy to knowledge re: Iraq that the public wasn't... they could have used that as their reason to go against their constituents if they'd wanted to. Some take the courageous stand, others cave to public sentiments in the hopes of being re-elected.

I doubt I have to tell you, as a supporter of the candidate who sacrificed his re-election chances to do the right thing, which option I prefer.

However, on the other issues... I agree completely. This got a lot of visibility because it's life or death. IMO the Securities Litigation Reform Act (or whatever it was called) which likely is a big factor in the Enron scandals going unpunished, is an issue we should also be outraged about. (FYI Lieberman & Mosely-Braun - among others - voted with Republicans to overturn Clinton's veto of the bill. Thanks traitors!)

[goobergunch]

16. However

I remember how I felt at the time...and that was pretty damn angry at the Congress for passing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. At the time of the vote I was lobbying my senators for a Nay.

Anyone who couldn't see that the Turkeyman wasn't going to use the vote to his advantage was either terminally unaware, or pandering.

Need I name certain names of the notorious 4 panderers?

[G_j]

34. pleading, begging, standing in the rain for hours...n/t

[Padraig18]

23. I knew * was lying then....

.... and so did my senator, Mr. Durbin. No 'hindsight' on this issue here, dear.

[jeanmarc]

31. Not when you know they are lying to you.

That said, it's a tough business. I can see some of these people inside the loop believing some of this administrations lies because they were being told things that were to be kept confidential. So, you think you have a pipeline to the real information that the CIA is coming up with. I didn't buy it for a second however that the US would use the UN. This Resident has a bad track record for getting along with anyone in the international community without using a huge bribe.

[BootinUp]

17. Nay: Bush was untrustworthy

A strong no vote would have forced a better resolution. Problem was that the Bush controlled media had inflamed America into war mongerers and the dems didn't know how to fight it.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. I Knew They Were Lying

And, i am sick of "national security" secrets.

If they know something we don't, they should tell us. They work for us, damn it!

No more excuses about security and secrecy. They lied about the real reasons to go into Iraq, and i knew they were lying.

I would have voted Nay, only because they were hiding something. I would not have been complicit in one more secret being kept from the real gov't. Remember the real gov't? It's us, THE GOVERNED!
The Professor

[blm]

24. There are two answers. One is nay

and the other is....

If I had the responsibility to negotiate for a better bill and more nations and lives were at stake, then it would be derelict for me to not offer my vote to get that better bill, especially one that also preserved the UN and put weapons inspectors back in to the country FIRST.

Not everyone was charged with that responsibility. Lucky them.

So, I won't vote, since honesty matters.

[goobergunch]

30. The premise of the question is that you are a member of Congress...

and one that isn't on the negotiating team on this resolution. Basically, you have to vote on the question as put, knowing that if it passes, Bush will sign it into law as written.

[blm]

36. Nay if I had no further concern as a member of Congress.

Yes, if I had the responsibility of proffering my vote to limit Bush where I could.

[TankLV]

27. I knew it was all lies the moment it left *'s lips.

and every time one of his assholes opened up, too.

Easily and widely disprooven.

Why was it so hard for the "if I'd only known" spineless wimps dems to come to the same conclusions? After all, they supposedly had MORE privy-intelligence to decide on the matter than we did.

There was simply NO excuse for voting for that krap or for EVER "trusting" bunkerboy! Never!

[jeanmarc]

28. I believe in a formal declaration of war

Of course there's ways to get around that: Make up crap about being attacked(Gulf of Tonkin) for one. I am sick of the Congress giving so much authority for the President to wage war without a formal vote. If the UN Security council will vote for it(we have a veto, you know), then there's enough of a variety of opinions to make 'most' of their actions worth doing.

[sandnsea]

29. What if they find WMD???

All spring and summer over half this board was in a panic over them finding the WMD. Now they all say they KNEW Bush was lying all along. People are supporting the positions they have now and ignoring everything that really went on for the last year.

[sweetheart]

32. My vote is rather simple in congress: NOT-DeLay

My mission in congress is to take out one of the darkest evils... voting against the lead clan member. NAY.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. Yea. Just as Clark and Kerry said

It nevers hurts to threaten force. And you don't have to use it.
As Kerry said to the Will Pitt/Franken crowd: we wouldn't be at war if he were President.

[sujan]

38. never hurts?

never?

[Aidoneus]

41. Indeed, a little bullying never hurts

as long as it is all in good fun.. are you listening to yourself?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

43. What Presidents do....

MATTHEWS: To try sharpen your position so we all come out of this room knowing your position. Had you been president earlier this year when they went up against the blank-the stonewall at the U.N.. and the U.N., and the Security Council, the Russians and the French, did not go along with the war, what would you have done differently than the president did? ....

KERRY: I would have done exactly what I said at the time, which is we should have pursued more diplomacy at the time to exhaust the remedies. And Chris...
MATTHEWS: It’s now October. How-would you still be exhausting the remedies now?
KERRY: Why not?
MATTHEWS: OK. That’s a position. I didn’t know you would go this long.
KERRY: Why not?
MATTHEWS: Would you have gone all these months?
KERRY: Why not? Absolutely. It’s cool in the fall as much as it is in the spring.
MATTHEWS: So you would have waited at least a year.
KERRY: I would have done-no, Chris, I would have done what was necessary to know that you had exhausted the available remedies

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983074.asp

[bobbyboucher]

37. What are you mushugunna?

Or something like that. Any help?

[Gringo]

39. I would have stood firm with sen. Byrd

and given him a long standing ovation, even if I was the only one. He was the only ray of hope to me in that dismal period. He deserves his own monument on the mall for his courage and eloquence.

[Pastiche423]

51. That is a wonderful idea

The Senator deserves a monument for what he has stood for (often days and weeks on end, literally) and for what he tried to teach the Senate on the lead up to the war rag vote.

A statue of him, w/his arm high in the air and a copy of our Constitution in his hand.

[DjTj]

42. I voted Yea...

In October 2002 I was lobbying my representatives to vote Nay, but I wasn't in their shoes and I think I was pretty ignorant about the situation...

I still don't know everything that they knew then, but I think I have a better idea now of what it was like to be facing that vote back in October.

I honestly believe that Bush would have gone into Iraq with or without the resolution. Many congressmen believed it at that time and I think I would have been in that camp. At the very least, there would've been enough votes for Biden-Lugar and that would be plenty enough for Bush to order the troops in.

So in choosing between whether I want the troops in Iraq with or without this resolution, I would choose Yea: with a resolution. This would have given the best chance for some reasonable coalition to form and perhaps even a semblance of UN support.

...I think this is what Kerry tries to say from time to time but I think he's given up on it already. I haven't followed the Kerry campaign too closely so I don't really know - any Kerry supporters out there that can clear up his position?

[Padraig18]

44. I knew all I needed to know:

Congress shall have the power to declare war---period.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

46. Yeah, but Clinton still fired all those cruise missiles into Iraq in '98

because the President can.

[Aidoneus]

49. and were/are you ok with that?

.

[Padraig18]

50. Your point? n/t

[xultar]

45. Knowing what we know now? Or What we know back in 2002

[RPG-7]

47. I knew

I took a bunch of bullshit for it to from people who were absolutely incensed that I "believed Saddam Hussein over Bush".

[youngred]

52. Nay, with a caveat

I understand why some voted yay on it considering the atmosphere of the country at the time