It's starting: Democrats will be blamed for Iraq.

[iconoclastic cat]

From today's NYT:

It isn't just Mr. Bush who is in a tight corner now. Ms. Sheehan's protest was the catalyst for a new national argument about the war that managed to expose both the intellectual bankruptcy of its remaining supporters on the right and the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats who had rubber-stamped this misadventure in the first place.

The whole article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28rich.html?ei=5090&en=91d8ac1acc31102c&ex=1282881600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

This is how it will start. In both 2006 and 2008, the meme will be, "The Democrats voted for, wanted, and lost the war in Iraq."

How are we (literally, DUers) going to stop it?

[Vickers]

1. Who was President? Who had the majority in Congress?

Why aren't The Twins fighting?

Keep THEM on the defensive. Fuck responding to their arguments.

[Alex146]

2. Well...

fuck all the democrats who did rubber stamp this war. We should blame them, remove them from office and replace them with true liberals. Enough of this crap.

[herbbrown]

Top of the list IMO

1.DLC
2.John Kerry
3.Hillary

Out with the bums NOW!

[emulatorloo]

33. Kerry lifetime ADA 92 -- yeah let's purge all the liberals!

Great idea -- I am sure the repubs who replace them will look after our interests.

http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html

[enough already]

103. People voting for war.....

....aren't looking after our interests, no matter what party they belong to.

[LittleClarkie]

66. Oh sure, not Leiberman or Zell or anyone who actually supports the GOP

Hillary and Bill as well for supporting them. But if you think Kerry is still in that boat, I have a Will Pitt interview I can show you.

I think Massachusetts will have something to say about "out the bum" as well.

So why is Kerry at the top of the list and Reid, our Majority Leader, someone else who voted for the IWR, isn't even on the list?

Oh, that's right. We like him. Nevermind. Fuck Kerry!!

Riiiight.

Subjective crap.

[Lisaben2619]

6. Not to mention Biden, Clinton, et.al

who are still bashing those in their own party like Feingold who are calling for withdrawal.

[iconoclastic cat]

9. Oh, I fully agree, but we can't get rid of them at this moment.

If we trim the deadwood now, we risk handing the Repubs a supermajority, and I don't think I have to tell you what that will mean.

[sandnsea]

15. Fuck Howard Dean too

For saying "60 days or invade". That didn't help a damned bit, the bastard.

[formernaderite]

61. Agreed.....I actually did give Kerry a pass

but I'm obviously sober now. Those who voted in lock step will answer.

[Imagevision]

62. who lied who died who profited...!

[mikelewis]

3. Agree with them....

and then explain that since our decision was based on fabricated evidence, we had a change of heart.

[blm]

4. Rich didn't read Kerry's strategy in his own paper on Jane 28? Clark's?

What DOES Rich read, anyway?

Did someone at the NYT tell him to start blaming Democrats?

Does Rich understand that IWR should have PREVENTED war if it was administered by an HONEST president?

Rich should be pointing out that Bush should be IMPEACHED for not adhering to an official resolution for congress that had RESTRICTIONS and were contingent upon weapons inspections and diplomacy, both of which Bush purposely MISUSED in his LYING determination that war was unavoidable.

Blaming the iWR is an exercise for STUPID people easily spun by Rove.

I hope Rich reads DU.

[iconoclastic cat]

11. "Did someone at the NYT tell him to start blaming Democrats?"

Yes. His pimp smacked him up during dinner at the ranch.

[Q]

24. Yeah...they only called it the Iraq WAR resolution...

...to scare Saddam.

Maybe Kerry and others didn't READ the short title of the resolution:

`Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

Please stop making excuses for those who voted for AGGRESSIVE WAR.

[blm]

26. Let Bush off the hook for not ADHERING to the guidelines of the IWR

is a really smart tactic, Q.

Howz it working?

We'd be alot better off if everyone played this SMART and picked up on Bonifaz' point that Bush should be held accountable for not adhering to the restrictions in the IWR and the requirement that Bush make a determination that war was necessary AFTER weapons inspections and diplomacy point to war as necessary.

Nice Rovian distraction though to get the left blaming Dems and the IWR instead of getting the media to question what evidence Bush had AFTER the weapons inspections that proved to him that war was unavoidable as PER the IWR.

Spinning it so people believed Bush had no restrictions was pretty damn smart of Rove and his media, since there are so many on the left willing to buy into it just for the increased opportunity to attack and divide Democrats.

If you believe that any Democrat would have gone to war after weapons inspections proved it to be unnecessary, then that's a whole other perception problem.

[Q]

36. I've read the IWR...

AKA the :

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

I can just HEAR the IWR voters now: ...Golly, Gee...I didn't know Bush would actually attack Iraq after we voted for a resolution TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ.

Perhaps YOU didn't notice that the 'restrictions' were optional? Those representatives who tried to add language that would have made it harder to use force were ignored by the 'national security' Democrats.

Now the DLC and 'National Security' Democrats are trying to doublespeak us to death. If they didn't know what they were voting for...they shouldn't have voted at all.

[blm]

42. You're still changing the basic point. Bush didn't IMPLEMENT the IWR with

the integrity expected of ANY president.

Bonifaz' said IWR should be used to impeach Bush, and I agree with his assessment.

Unfortunately, too many Dems are enabling Bush to get away with not being held accountable for his dishonest implementation of the IWR as they are too busy wrongly blaming the IWR, itself , and the Dems who supported a RESOLUTION with war as a last resort only IF NECESSARY and UNAVOIDABLE after weapons inspections and diplomacy.

YOU want to agree with Bush and Rove spin that he had no restrictions....go ahead. That really lets him off the hook, doesn't it?

[Sparkman]

108. Will swing voters understand the sublte issue of IWR politics post 911?

No. Swing voters in '06 & '08 will need more substantive attacks on the CHARACTER of the Repubs that went along with * no matter how the nations' support for Iraq War diminished. AND, your right, abstention would have been very compassionate and wise looking from today's perspective.

[blondeatlast]

44. DINGDINGDING! We have a winner! this is all Bush and PNAC.

Bush violated many of the restrictions and LIED.

Period.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. If the Dems don't fight back in anger and explain that their biggest

mistake was counting on the Republicans to play by Queensbury Rules instead of the Marques de Sade Rules.

It's their own fault for not doing a better job of explaining how they've been punked, time and time again by the Republicans who are simply unethical.

You'd think that among Democratic sympathizers, they could find a movie producer and a lawyer that could state the case in layman's terms.

[merbex]

7. My answer will be that the neo cons in power LIED& COOKED

THE BOOKS

And SOME democrats believed what was told to them by this LYING,THIEVING, CORRUPT BUNCH

And that the Repugs ALWAYS vote in lock step because holding on to power and showing loyalty to their defacto leader is more important than what is in the best interests of the US

Democrats better start saying that they now realize that they were LIED TO

AND IF VOTING NOW WOULD VOTE DIFFERENTLY

Got that Biden, Kerry, Hillary,et al?

[no_hypocrisy]

8. OK. So according to their logic, dems can't support the county (not

necessarily the president and party in power), learn new facts (or discover the president and the party in power lied or misprepresented facts) and change their position and then withdraw their support consequently. And still be loyal Americans. You broke it, you bought it.

No.

[Toots]

22. Would be nice if they did such a thing but have they?

As far as I can tell they are all saying stay the course just like Bush* is. There are a few brave enough to personally say stop the war now. Conyers for example but the HUGE Majority of Democrats are staying silent and hoping it will all just go away.

[niallmac]

10. By agreeing that

"Yes they sure the hell did and they don't represent me or traditional democratic values."
I would like to see a clean sweep of these traitors and a new consensus about our values. Are we a party of the people or the comfortable? Are we for universal health care or not and workers rights or not? Are we going to dig thru the trash of every repug meeting and try to see how we can be just like them or are we going to follow our own principals because we believe in them? (I am reluctant to post this without a public poll first but oh well what the hell.)

[iconoclastic cat]

13. We can't lose even more ground, though.

If we drive our own from their offices--and hand their positions to Repubs--say goodbye to democracy.

[niallmac]

25. Agreed. Not an easy problem to solve

without shooting ourselves in the foot. BUT, the party needs to get in tune with it's core values which I fear have been watered down so much it all just tastes like water. I have voted party line all my life just so something like the 911 fascists could not pull the wool over our rights and freedoms? This is not a good situation we are in. Our reps are sold out or I don't know what the hell is going on. I cite the new bankruptcy law as an example of my source of bafflement. What is more dangerous, chemo therapy to the Dem Party now or waiting until the American Dream of owning a house collapses and the average Joes feels hopeless. Do you know what happens when the average Joe/Joesephine loses faith in his/her future? Violent change is suddenly not unthinkable. This is the scenario I want to avoid so you see I am actually not so radical as i might seem on first blush.

[blondeatlast]

46. For many DUers, it's nigh impossible to see the big picture.

I don't use the feature "ignore" but I try my damndest to avoid them.

[sandnsea]

12. This started 2 years ago

This was the meme on the right all last year. Democrats are wishy-washy on security. We let the vote get framed as a vote for war, which played right into Bush's hands. We missed the chance to expose his rush to war in 2003 because we let the 2002 vote become the time when the war was decided, despite Bush's own words to the contrary. We also tied our hands to criticize the war strategy because all they had to say is "Democrats voted for it". Terrible political strategy on the part of the left, to let the vote get framed that way. Equally terrible is "immediate withdrawal" because NO Democrat is calling for that either.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Nominate, support, and elect anti-war Dems

In every Republican held seat, an anti-war Democrat should be the opponant. Look what happened in OH with this strategy. We must take our party back from the corporate-run apologists who call themselves Democrats but who, in reality, are merely Republican-Lite.

[sandnsea]

16. Hackett wasn't anti-war then

When Hackett was running, he supported winning in Iraq.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. That is more than Bush is

Bush has no plans whatsoever in Iraq, other than to stay there forever.

[CANDO]

17. This shouldn't surprise anyone.

Since when do the pukes take responsibility for anything? We all know they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. The funniest irony will be the "liberal media" helping them blame the democrats, and even that will never enter the sheeples' consciousness.

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Who fabricated the evidence?

Who linked binLadin to Saddam?
Who alleged Iraqi-Baathist funding of 9/11?
Who created the legend of WMD?
Who spread the tale of yellow cake.
Who spread the tale of aluminum centrifuge tubes?
Who created the fiction of missile launchers?
Who created the story of mobile bio weapon labs.

Yet this was what even Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell were fed!

The proper test is NOT the simplistic "did they vote for the war" but the more complex "If the facts were as alleged and stated ..., if the misstatements were so convincingly presented ..., if the contrary view was silenced ..., if the means to determine the falsity were cut off ..., not in retrospect with 20/20 hindsight, but at that point in time...,"

What Bush did was a an impeachable offense.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

§ 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 USC 1001

The real question -- who had the sick oedipal need to crush Saddam to overcome his own feeling of inadequacy? Read


We are all innocent victims of fraud, lies, deceit, and impeachable offenses. Even Blix and el-Baradi were victims.

This is a crass Rovian attempt to "Blame the victim" -- as in "The rape victim asked for it by wearing short shorts."

[mtnsnake]

88. Exactly, yet people here love to simply bash their "favorite" Dems

even though these same Democrats were convinced to vote the way they did because they were lied to by Bush. This is not just Hillary's or any other Dem's fault in particular who voted to give the lying scoundrel permission to attack Iraq. This is the fault of Bushco, period, for lying and creating an atmosphere where he had people convinced that Iraq was something it was not.

Where I fault the Democrats is their total lack of spine in going after Bush NOW. They should admit he fooled them into making a monumental mistake and go after him with a vengeance.

[flaminbats]

128. Where would the fun be without other Democrats to bash?

who the hell wants more votes or to make new party members feel welcome..especially since slapping each other in the face gives Republicans more to laugh at? :eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

19. "How are we (literally, DUers) going to stop it?"

maybe you should be more worried about stopping the damned war than about stopping the criticism of Democrats who helped start it ...

and maybe you should ask some of the Democrats criticized in the article, some by our own Gary Hart btw, why they continue to refuse to support the views of the American people on the war and especially the views of a majority of Democrats ...

we want this damned thing ended and too many elected Democrats continue to talk about staying in Iraq until some objective or other is met ...

making sure the republicans receive their fair share of the blame for this insanity is fine but don't for a minute believe Democrats are not guilty for all the killing as well ...

stop the war not the criticism of those who continue to support it ...

[kevinmc]

20. Last Week Pat Robertson before he said too Murder Chavez..........

blamed the Democrats for Iraq becoming an Islamic THeocracy. He gave Bush and the Republicans a pass on it. Right after he made that statement he went into his kill Chavez speech.

[Upfront]

21. Just As Guilty

The Democrats who voted for this war are just as bad as the Rethugs who did. They knew it was wrong but were to worried about getting elected again. Now there war has turned to shit and they don't like it that it is coming back on them. You do wrong it will almost always bite you in the ass.

[katinmn]

23. Yep. DLC Dems deserve to be held accountable, too.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Al From still supports the war!

and he is the DLC's CEO!

[globalvillage]

27. Stop it?

Many on DU are doing everything possible to promote the RW meme, shifting the blame from bush* and his lies to those who were lied to.

Yes, many Democrats made a massive mistake by listening to bush* and voting for the IWR. Every one of them should acknowledge the mistake and call this administration on the lie, shifting the blame for the war back where it belongs. Regardless of the vote on the IWR, Democrats did not start this war. The distinction between the IWR and the war itself is crucial.

IMO, this is what the Dems in congress should all be saying, and we should support them:

We listened to bush*, and, based on the intelligence that was known to us at the time, made the mistake of believing he was acting in the best interest of the country. We thought he would honor the intent of the IWR, which was to continue the weapons inspections, not recklessly rush to war. That's what we were told, and we believed it. We were wrong to trust the president, and we're sorry that we did. We will not repeat the mistake of trusting this corrupt administration's lies and deception.

What can DU do? We can stop advocating a clean sweep of the Dems in Congress. First, it won't happen, and it will only serve to keep the repubs in the majority if we don't help reelect our big name Dems. Of course we can and should support new candidates who oppose preemptive war. But we can also urge our already elected leaders to admit the mistake and refocus the blame where it belongs. Then we can support them for having the conviction and moral strength to admit a mistake instead of beating them over the head with it at every opportunity. We can write to them, we can write to the media, we can say, every day and to everyone who challenges it, BUSH LIED.

JMO.

[emulatorloo]

28. This is Bush's war, I don't care how DU or NYT wants to spin it

and a clean sweep of Dems is just what Rove et al wants.


Bush fabricated evidence
Colin Powell sold it and promised all diplomatic roads will be followed
Rumsfeld and Tenet had super secret briefings that showed unequivocably where the WMDs were stored.
Karl Rove pushed pushed pushed to get the vote done as fast as possible before the midterms.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. That's the very point---

Bush/Cheney/Rove fabricated the evidence

Bush/Cheney/Rove pushed for a fast vote
Bush/Cheney/Rove outsmarted the American people.

Enough with this "Blame the Victims" stuff (That's the oldest rape defense attorney game in the book)

Blame Bush/Cheney/Rove.

[verdalaven]

29. I see something in that article that gives me hope

I don't like his tone or the way he obviously despises democrats (what, did one break his heart once upon a time?) but I loved seeing stuff like this:

In the first speech of this offensive, he even felt compelled to take the uncharacteristic step of citing the number of American dead in public (though the number was already out of date by at least five casualties by day's end). For the second, the White House recruited its own mom, Tammy Pruett, for the president to showcase as an antidote to Ms. Sheehan. But in a reversion to the president's hide-the-fallen habit, the chosen mother was not one who had lost a child in Iraq.

and this....

IN the new pitch there are no mushroom clouds. Instead we get McCarthyesque rhetoric accusing critics of being soft on the war on terrorism, which the Iraq adventure has itself undermined. Before anyone dare say Vietnam, the president, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld drag in the historian David McCullough and liken 2005 in Iraq to 1776 in America - and, by implication, the original George W. to ours. Before you know it, Ahmad Chalabi will be rehabilitated as Ben Franklin.

*'s base likely trusts this man because he speaks to them in that "hate the dems" language that they seem to understand and embrace, and he is telling them this administration sucks. Sounds pretty sweet to me.

As for the Dems being blamed, I am not surprised. After all, everything that has happened since 2001 is Clinton's fault.....
:sarcasm:

[OneTwentyoNine]

30. LOL,only if milqe-toast Dems let them try and pull that shit.... IF n/t

[sandnsea]

31. Only if leftist Dems/Greens STOP helping n/t

[emulatorloo]

34. Painting with a Broad Brush and letting Bush off the hook is too much fun

for some, I guess. . .

[Roland99]

35. NO DEMOCRAT VOTED *FOR* THE WAR!! DAMNIT I HATE THAT!!

They voted to give authority to go to war ONLY...and ONLY if ALL other options failed.

We all know damn well and good that those options were NOT seen through to their end. The Propagandist yanked the inspectors out when they were doing great work because of one reason:

He KNEW they would find NO WMDS and, therefore, the reason for going to war would be gone!

[Q]

37. That's such BS...

...and everyone knows it.

For hell sakes...it was called the:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Get it?

Bush was buidling up forces on the Iraqi border. He was lying his ass off about Iraq being a threat. He was pounding the war drums.

Now we're being told that the Dems that voted for it were too naive to understand the implications?

And what about all those Democrats who DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT? Were they just smarter? Or perhaps they were more concerned about America's future than their own political careers?

Here's the relevant language:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

-------

Notice THIS paragraph?

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...

THE ARGUMENT OF THE DEMS THAT REFUSED TO VOTE FOR IT WAS THAT IT WAS TOO VAGUE AND OPEN-ENDED. As it turns out...they were right.

[Roland99]

43. Yes, I've read that *many* times.

Have you read Sen. Kerry's remarks in the Congressional Record?

[Q]

49. What does Kerry's remark in the Congressional record...

...have to do with the IWARr vote? The resolution plainly states that they're giving Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that Bush HAS TO work with the UN or security council before attacking.

Those who voted to give Bush the AUTHORITY to attack Iraq are trying to have it both ways. This is hurting the Democratic party.

[Roland99]

51. Go read his remarks and tell me if you have the sentiment afterward.

His speech was perfect.

[vision]

72. Kerry said he would hold Bush accountable

How has Kerry done that? How many fillibusters has Kerry led? What part of the Bush agenda has Kerry stopped?

How is he holding Bush accountable?

Yes Kerry had some great things to say but I want results.

[howmad1]

77. Hey, I wish someone would now ask....

.....Kerry, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war in Iraq? Would love to hear his answer. On the other hand, maybe he just does not want to repeat his answer that lost him the election.

[IndianaGreen]

85. Kerry was asked that very question during the campaign!

Kerry, if you knew then what you know now, would you have supported the war in Iraq? Would love to hear his answer.

Kerry flubbed the answer! Rather than say that he would not had voted for IWR, he said he would had still voted for it.

The fact that Kerry has not supported Rep. Conyers call for hearings on the Downing Street Memo is indicative enough of where Kerry's heart really was, on the side of war for oil!

Frank Rich of the NY Times is right when he wrote that many of the Democrats that voted for IWR are afraid to admit they made a mistake.

Bush hides behind the troops in order to avoid accountability for the Iraq fiasco. Some Democrats hide behind Bush in order to avoid being held accountable for their past support of Bush's policies. Cowards!

[karynnj]

91. Kerry has requested the Intelligence Committee

investigate the DSM in conjunction with the WMD part 2 that was promised. Only 9 Senators signed to back him. This is the right organization and the right method in the Senate - Kerry is not a member of the House.

Kerry has stated many times that he would not have gone to war. (Teresa was pretty adamant about that too and she is both likely to know and very honest).

Rich, who I've loved reading for years, has had little snarky comments about Kerry in nearly every column he has written. Most are childish, nasty and uncalled for.

[sunnystarr]

95. Kerry who has hearing problems from his war days

didn't hear the question accurately according to what I've read on DU. I don't know how true that is but I figured I'd put it out here in case it's true.

[IndianaGreen]

111. He obviously also failed to hear his own constituents

when they flooded his office with calls, e-mails, letters, and faxes, begging him to vote against the war. Perhaps Teresa should have been the junior Senator from Massachusetts! She would have voted against IWR.

[sunnystarr]

120. Agreed! (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

40. Authority for the war means go to war when ready

Authority to fire means open fire when the order is given.

Authority to spend funds means to spend the funds.

That's what authority means in the military and in the government. The apologists for those that voted for IWR cannot spin this one out.

Why don't these Democrats that voted for IWR accuse Bush of lying the country into war and call for an end to the war? Perhaps it is because they wanted Iraq's oil as much as Bush did.

Let's not forget that Kerry bashed Chavez using the same language as Condi. These people all think alike, the only thing they disagree with is how the pie should be sliced.

[globalvillage]

58. Re the Chavez comments attributed to Kerry

I think you're referring to the response to the statement made by Chavez comparing Kerry to Kennedy (favorably), and seen as an endorsement. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Wasn't it Rand Beers who commented on Chavez? Granted, on Kerry's behalf, but I believe it was discovered that Kerry did not have input. Personally, I'm curious to know Kerry’s own thoughts on Chavez. I doubt they would be similar; he’s too particular with details, and would not have made a statement that rife with errors.

What I don’t get is why Kerry hired former bushite Beers in the first place, and why no one fact-checked the comments.

Did Kerry make another statement re Chavez? If so, can you post a link? I don't think I've seen it.

I can understand why the Kerry campaign would have tried to distance the Senator from that endorsement, considering the bush*/rove machine would have nailed him with it. All Robertson had to do recently was call Chavez a dictator and it was repeated ad nauseam by the media. Rove would have used it mercilessly during the campaign, and the subject is complex enough that the general public would never have heard the truth.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Kerry's 2004 neocon position on Venezuela is well documented

Kerry repeated every lie told by Condi Rice and other pukes about Chavez. Why? It was assumed that Kerry's pockets were lined with campaign contributions from the Miami "mafia," i.e., the Cuban exiles and Venezuelan elites. Kerry's attack on Chavez was posted on his campaign website last year, but it is no longer available. However, you can go to DU's archives and pull the threads that were posted on that topic last year.

Here are a three articles from that period of time:

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela
by VenezuelAnalysis.com

It is almost unexplainable that Kerry, as a Democrat, maintains almost the same positions as Bush and his ultra-conservative cabinet. Many in the progressive community had hoped that Kerry could bring a fundamental change to the foreign policies implemented by Bush towards Latin America. Statements such as this lead us to believe that there may be little change in the arrogant US government foreign policy, and unfortunately, mistrust and resentment towards the United States in Latin America would probably continue to grow as a result.

Without offering any evidence, Kerry, follows the line of the Venezuelan opposition, accusing Chavez of aiding the Colombian guerrilla forces, permitting narcotrafficking, undermining democratic institutions, attempting to impede a possible recall referendum on his mandate, and of implementing policies that are detrimental to US interests.

Chavez is a President who has been elected twice by clear majorities in democratic elections, and who, at this time, still enjoys one of the highest levels of popularity amongst Latin American leaders. Chavez's policies have earned him the support of millions of progressive and liberal voices throughout Latin America as well as in North America.

Kerry's recent statement makes it clear that he has taken the side of the Venezuelan opposition, an opposition which is unequivocally responsible for the political instability in Venezuela due to its failure and refusal to accept Chavez as the President of Venezuela, despite his clear support by a majority of Venezuelans proven through numerous electoral victories.

The fact that in his statement Kerry suggests Bush has not put enough pressure on Chávez, completely ignores the ample evidence of the millions of dollars the Bush administration has given the Venezuelan opposition through the National Endowment for Democracy. Such substantial financing has been used numerous times in attempts to oust Chávez from office through extra-constitutional means.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-01.htm

Published on Friday, March 26, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Senator Kerry: You Want My Vote? Support My Positions!
by Ann Samuelson

As with many prior Democratic presidential candidates, I fully expect to see Kerry move to the right as we get closer to the election. We can see this kind of movement in a speech Kerry made on March 19th when he condemned Hugh Chavez, the democratically elected President of Venezuela. Candidate Kerry characterized Chavez's policies as "detrimental to our interests" and suggested he was undermining Venezuela's democracy as well as supporting Columbian rebels. Kerry singled out Chavez's friendship with Fidel Castro for special condemnation and accused him of impeding a recall referendum. Prior to this, news reports suggested Chavez was trying to court a friendship with Kerry.

So what are Chavez's real crimes? He's undertaken a land reform in Venezuela, giving idle lands to poor peasants; many of these lands were previously under the jurisdiction of large plantation owners. Also, he's taken on big oil interests by passing laws that doubled the royalty taxes paid by oil operators and he's asserted control over the state owned state oil company, which was previously controlled by foreign oil interests. It's telling that one of the few places you can find the full text of Kerry's speech is on Petroleum World website (http://www.petroleumworld.com/Edit4Mar24.htm).

I would doubt the majority of Americans know who Hugh Chavez is or care about America's relationship with him. If this speech is not earning Kerry points with the voters, why is he making it? It's a wink and a nod at the wealthy and the corporations who have business interests in Venezuela. Through this speech he's implying that while he might take left stances in public, he's really siding with big corporate interests just like Bush. So it's up to you, Senator Kerry. What's it to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue courting corporations and the wealthy? Either way the Democratic Party ought to stop blaming Nader for their own failures.

Ann Samuelson ([e-mail]) is Chair of the Green Party of Pima County, in Tucson, Arizona. Currently she is an undecided voter.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0326-13.htm

March 24, 2004

An Open Letter to John Kerry
You Are Wrong on Venezuela, Senator
By EVA GOLINGER

As a registered Democrat who supports major changes to current US governance, I must express my utmost disappointment and disillusionment with your March 19, 2004 Statement on Venezuela. I am a US citizen of Venezuelan origin. I have voted on the democratic bill since I was first legally permitted to vote many years ago. Along with many other residents and citizens in this country, I believe the current US administration has acted in ways contrary to my beliefs and perceptions of democracy and progress, and has betrayed notions of what the United States of America should truly represent and pursue in the world community.

Up until Friday's statement, I had hope that you, as a presidential candidate, could offer the American people a true alternative and change from the brutal, insensitive and interventionist government we have had during the past four years. As a Venezuelan-American, I must tell you that your statement on Venezuela is not only highly misplaced, but also demonstrates how truly uninformed you are about the situation in Venezuela. It also leads me to believe that you have been influenced by interested parties insisting you take a stand on this issue in their favor.

You declare that international pressure should bear on President Chavez to allow the referendum to proceed, which clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the referendum process in Venezuela. As per the Venezuelan Constitution, certain procedures must first be completed before a recall referendum can be held on President Chavez' mandate, and those clamoring for the referendum have yet to fulfill the necessary requirements that would permit such a vote to take place. It may be easy for you to make a statement on an issue you do not fully understand or care about, merely to acquire approval from a targeted voting pool, yet I would warn you to not make such whimsical declarations without first examining the entire situation.

You, as others in the current administration and congress, may feel as though President Chavez is somehow interfering in the referendum process. But, Mr. Kerry, I suggest you seek out other news and information sources than those currently serving you, because a more accurate report of the events in Venezuela would demonstrate to you that President Chavez has taken no steps whatsoever to impede a recall referendum. Venezuela's Electoral Council and Supreme Court are currently determining whether hundreds of thousands of potentially fraudulent signatures are subject to further review and certification. Determining whether substantial numbers of signatures on a very important petition is an issue, which I hope, you would consider worthy of scrutiny and absolute certainty. Or would you permit such a situation to occur in your own election and just let potentially fraudulent votes against you be counted without any further verification or review?

http://counterpunch.org/golinger03242004.html

[globalvillage]

69. Thank you for your reply

I believe the website post you reference is the one I alluded to, which was apparently authored by Beers (observation, not excuse), but I will do my homework in the archives.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue32/article937.html

on edit
Truth be told, after the bit of research I did in the archives, Kerry should have distanced himself from this discussion altogether, and opted for a personal reply to Chavez, not a public one. Either position was a lose-lose for his campaign. Although I am quite obviously no expert on this topic, that's my impression from reading the threads.
Chavez did still support a Kerry win in Aug. That's good to know.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=734300

[welshTerrier2]

81. no, Kerry should NOT "have distanced himself from this discussion"

it is important for Americans to understand what is being done in all our names ... real opposition leadership needs to start telling the American people the truth ... what's the point of electing Democrats if the most critical issues go unaddressed ??

the US has a long history of assassinating democratically elected leaders ... our "hit squads" are deployed wherever it's necessary to support the corporate agenda ... some have read John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" ... for those who haven't, you can read a little about the book here ==> http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14974.htm

Perkins, writing from first-hand knowledge, describes extensive, covert US operations throughout the entire world ... this included the ousting of Mossadeq in Iran during "Operation Ajax" ...

source: http://countrystudies.us/iran/17.htm

In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a British proposal for a joint Anglo-American operation, code-named Operation Ajax, to overthrow Mossadeq. Kermit Roosevelt of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) traveled secretly to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah and the Iranian military, which was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi.

In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mossadeq. Mossadeq refused to step down and arrested the shah's emissary. This triggered the second stage of Operation Ajax, which called for a military coup. The plan initially seemed to have failed, the shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding. After four days of rioting, however, the tide turned. On August 19, pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces.

the parallels to Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, and on and on are startling ... somehow, our government always seems so worried about "the people" and their democratic freedoms in these countries ... and yet somehow, oil, or some other "prize" is also present ...

if you agree with this, who will stand up and tell the American people the truth?? ... you either are an imperialist or a warrior against imperialism ... i'm confident we all believe Kerry knows exactly what is going on in South America ... and the choice he made was to campaign on the theme that Chavez opposes OUR interests? just whose interests did he have in mind when he made that statement?

what Kerry said in one speech in one campaign is not really even the issue ... what is the issue is that we need to get candidates who are not afraid to talk about the abuse of our government and the abuse of our foreign policy by big oil and other trans-national corporations ... it is THE issue ... we, as citizens, either have power or we don't ... if those who understand the truth are either co-opted themselves or too fearful to campaign on it, we need better candidates ...

Kerry should not only NOT have distanced himself from this discussion, he should have led the charge in opposition to the imperialistic tyrants who still, to this day, seek to topple a duly elected foreign leader for their own commercial greed ...

[karynnj]

92. Kerry was not supported by the RW Venezuelan or Cuban exiles

Who hated him more than almost any other politician. Between his fight against Nixon and his fight against the contras, Kerry was not their choice. Not everybody anti- Bush is a saint. Kerry may well have been wrong in his view on Chavez, but his stated view of how to interact with nations is totally different from Bush's.

A President Kerry would obviously be leery of Chavez, but he would likely have met with him or talked to him. Kerry knows a lot about narcoterrorism so I would not immediately discount what he is saying - he spent a huge amount of time on this. IF Kerry's comment is accurate, the reasonable thing to do is demand change on this in return for better relationships. It also explains why especially after Chavez appeared to endorse him, Kerry may have needed to distance himself.

Kerry's comments in the commerce committee hearing that were dealing with confirming Portman and CAFTA sound deal with the situation of the poor in Latin America - he was the only one on the committee articulating these concerns.

[Sparkman]

107. negotiate...before retaliate...not a Repub. school. Labor taught us how.

[Sparkman]

105. Kerry would not have sent CIA for the 2002 coup attempt. Neutral Observers

could have predicted the success of Chavez, by talking to a large group of Venezuelans. This is something the CIA can't do, because of their recent leadership. The CIA gets its SMARTS from large a large data gathering network, which it doesn't have anymore.
Dems can, at this point would, fix this. Even if Clinton's CIA was remiss in S.A., it sure held the line on the mid-east by the new paradigm, Iraq.
No contest, a Dem would glow with success at getting the new Terrorist War right, if we use the real neocon group (not Kerry)as the standard.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Get a grip! That's another fine piece by Frank Rich.

Just as Bush hides behind the troops to avoid being held accountable for Iraq, some Democrats hide behind Bush to avoid being held accountable for their votes for war.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. 22 Senate Democrats voted against it; only 1 Republican did

It's hardly the Democrats' fault when almost half of them voted against it. This is like the crap you hear from revisionists about the Reagan tax cuts and other horrendous idiocy that came out of Congress: the House was controlled by Democrats. Reality is this: virtually every Republican votes with the primitives and enough Democrats cross over to screw things up. As such, the true villains are ALWAYS the Republicans.

In the House, 133 Representatives voted against the resolution, and only 6 of them were Republicans. This means that well over half of the Democratic Representatives voted against it, even though they were all up for reelection and the fear and intimation of weakness had been whipped up to a fever pitch less than a month in front of the first election after 9-11.

I'm not happy about all of this either, but we weren't totally betrayed.

[bvar22]

78. The Republicans are NOT supposed to represent me.

The Democrats ARE.
I don't blame a snake for being a reptile.
I DO blame elephants who pretend to be donkeys!

[Catrina]

116. Actually, 21 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent

voted against the IWR. And as you said, 127 Democrats in the House voted against it.

But we get this all the time now. Some Democrats vote against some heinous bill put forward by Bush, but others go along with the Repubs every time, and as a result, they betray the base of their party and their colleagues who know they cannot count on fellow Democrats to properly represent the people who support them.

I remember the night of the IWR. When Sen. Byrd stood up to vote 'no' he begged his colleagues in the Senate to vote against it. He gave an inspiring speech which drew tears from many listening to him that nigh, a speech which ED Schultz said recently was what cleared up for him, doubts he had had about the vote. It didn't clear doubts for other Democrats though.

Right after Sen. Byrd's historic speech, I remember Hillary Clinton took the floor. I was in tears after Byrd's speech and believed that no true Democrat could ignore his warnings and pleas and support giving that kind of power to the power-hungry neocons who, it was obvious to anyone were on a mission to go to war regardless of the facts. But Hillary Clinton, offering excuses for her vote, said 'Aye'.

That night I remember feeling shattered. I knew they had been pressured into the vote before the election, and did exactly as was expected of them by Bush. I swore I would not support any Democrat who had voted for the IWR that night. I did not. But then, out of the blue, the primaries were over, and the Democratic candidate turned out to be a supporter of the war!! Once again, I felt, as did so many other Democrats I know, totally betrayed.

Still, there was no choice but to support the Democrat. But it was under duress. I fought with both left and rightwingers. I will never do that again. I will support a third party candidate who represents what I believe in, rather than a Democrat who supports Rightwing warmongering.

Kerry DID criticize Chavez. I signed a petition asking him to retract his statements. The petition had thousands of signatures on it. Kerry never even commented on it, as far as I know.

Over a year ago, Rockefeller said he regretted his vote and would not do it again. Recently, Rep. Jones (Rep) of NC, now says he regrets his vote. One or two other reps have made similar statements. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Biden have done no such thing. They know now that Bush lied, even if they were naive enough back then not to know it. So, why have they not followed the example of Rep. Jones and Rockefeller and spoken out against the lies told to start this war?

I'm tired of the excuses. Too many people have died as a result of their 'naivetee' ~ this was a vote that cost lives. Way too serious to accept any more excuses for. I will never again support such individuals. I have an Iraqi friend who is heart-broken over what has been done to his country. I am embarrassed to talk to him. He lives there and sees the result of this vote each day. :cry:

Sorry, but we need a real opposition party, not Republican lite. Too many people are dead and we're worried about 'perception'. I'm worried about what's right and what's wrong, and I do not want to be on the wrong side of an issue that involves the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people.

[notadmblnd]

45. yeah, but that rubber stamp was based on a ......

BIG FAT LIE!

[Cocoa]

47. he makes the mistake of marginalizing Feingold

should give him credit for mentioning Feingold (though he neglects to mention that Boxer has joined him in his Iraq position), but I think it's a mistake to cast Feingold as a minor candidate. He's a frontrunner for sure.

And it's a very real possibility that more dems will follow Feingold's lead. Instead of declaring (falsely, due to the Boxer omission) that no one is joining Feingold, why not work to force others to sign on on Russ's side?

Among Washington's Democrats, the only one with a clue seems to be Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin senator who this month proposed setting a "target date" (as opposed to a deadline) for getting out. Mr. Feingold also made the crucial observation that "the president has presented us with a false choice": either "stay the course" or "cut and run." That false choice, in which Mr. Bush pretends that the only alternative to his reckless conduct of the war is Ms. Sheehan's equally apocalyptic retreat, is used to snuff out any legitimate debate. There are in fact plenty of other choices echoing about, from variations on Mr. Feingold's timetable theme to buying off the Sunni insurgents.

But don't expect any of Mr. Feingold's peers to join him or Mr. Hagel in fashioning an exit strategy that might work. If there's a moment that could stand for the Democrats' irrelevance it came on July 14, the day Americans woke up to learn of the suicide bomber in Baghdad who killed as many as 27 people, nearly all of them children gathered around American troops. In Washington that day, the presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held a press conference vowing to protect American children from the fantasy violence of video games.

The Democrats are hoping that if they do nothing, they might inherit the earth as the Bush administration goes down the tubes. Whatever the dubious merits of this Kerryesque course as a political strategy, as a moral strategy it's unpatriotic. The earth may not be worth inheriting if Iraq continues to sabotage America's ability to take on Iran and North Korea, let alone Al Qaeda.

[leetrisck]

48. We are helping the republicans by blaming Democrats

they'll just take it and run with it as they already have.

[Coastie for Truth]

52. Blame the Dems

Gather ourselves in a circle

Face Inward

Commence firing----

Just like we did FOR Nixon in 1968 (Remember, Humphrey was too little and too late against the Viet Nam war) and Bush in 2000 (Gore, Tweedledum and Tweedledee - both parties are the same -- don't make no difference - Vote For Nader).

IS THIS WHO YOU REALLY WANT
<>
OR IS IT BILL FRIST
OR SAM BROWNBACK
OR TOM COBURN
OR RICK SANTORUM

I will vote for the Democratic Candidate in 2008- even Kerry, even Hillary, even Nancy, even Barbara, even John Conyers (although he and the Levins are the worst possible Dems on energy and the environment - and I devoted seven years of my life to the General Motors Electric Vehicle Project - Conyers and the Levins are not our friends on energy and environment - worse then Bush/Cheney on energy and environment), even Kucinich, even Clark, even Edwards, even Dean, even Rendell, even Casey, even Vilsack, even Richardson, even Gray Davis.

[katinmn]

53. I bet you wouldn't vote for ol Zell if he was running agin as a Dem!

[Coastie for Truth]

54. NOT ZELL

<>

and I am a Chartered Professional Engineer in the Province of Sasketchewan

<>

and I love Canadian football.

As a "San Franciscan By Choice" VANCOUVER IS WHAT I ALWAYS DREAMED SAN FRANCISCO WOULD BE LIKE

[calimary]

55. Well, are we just gonna sit by silently and let them shout, alone?

Hmmmmm?

Nobody has any retort to offer? YEAH I KNOW we don't have radio stations and radio shows. But for the time being, we do not have gags in our mouths and we are not yet all being rounded up and shipped off to Gitmo... We have to do this ourselves. We have to do it one person at a time. From the ground up. Save one soul at a time. I'm certainly not going to stay silent.

[Lindacooks]

56. Oh, I love this: Repukes are only INTELLECTUALLY bankrupt,

and Dems are UTTERLY bankrupt? What kind of hell propaganda is that? Don't tell me those words weren't carefully and deliberately chosen.

Unbelievable.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. 150, or so, Dems voted against. And what? 10 Pubics?

Easy counterspin. :shrug:

[LWolf]

59. I don't know about "WE."

I know that I will again campaign for a candidate who did not vote for the IWR. If the Democrats don't offer me one, I won't campaign.

Bush and his gang of thugs bear the lion's share of responsibility for the Iraq War and every other degradation that has occurred under his administration. That said, as far as I am concerned, I hold Democrats accountable for their votes, too.

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Americans are too straight forward to buy this. GOP made this war.

They will blame it on the Republicans, no matter how hard the Republicans to blame it on the Democrats.

[kenny blankenship]

63. That's a given.

Bush lost the war he should never have started, Democrats set themselves up to take blame and offer no resistance.

It's getting reeeeally old as a yarn told and retold as our country falls. But as long as Democrats go quietly when ordered around by the Republicans, WHO'S TO KNOW THE STORY ISN'T TRUE?

For people to remember that history isn't the way Republicans and their media allies tell it, SOMEBODY has to be offering the counter-narrative along the way, and sealing that memory with landmarks of dissent and protest along the way. There's been very very little sign of a struggle left behind by our Hill Democrats. With the result now that they have no memory seeded among the public to appeal to.

[LittleClarkie]

64. THEY WERE LIED TO. Put the damn blame where it goes!!

On the people who fabricated the intelligence, insisted we had to go, pushed and dragged and distorted and were the main architects of the whole plan and who called anyone who disagreed unAmerican.

Bush wanted this war. He has it. It's ALL his.

Frank Rich can kiss my grits.

[kenny blankenship]

70. So you're saying the President of the United States lied to Congress,

the American people, to the United Nations Security Council and the whole World?

Isn't it kinda important for an opposition party to point out with unambiguous language this fact--what you claim to be a fact, which if it is a fact, is surely a fact that is evidence of a crime of world-historical proportions?

If Bush was telling lies to Congress about imminent threats to this country's national security, if he was retailing the fictions of the Office of Special Operations and WMD daydreams conjured up the CIA, then our war on Iraq was completely illegal--a violation of the UN Charter.
It was at the same time a violation of his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, compounded by a conspiracy to deceive Congress with a fabricated cause of war. Mass bloodshed has occured--and the initial justification has been revealed as a lie. A crime of gi-normous scale has been perpetrated and, as an added consequence, the international system of orderly relations between countries is today a heap of smoking ruins. We can't even picture how it will put back together again or when. And the crime continues hour by hour as we continue to occupy Iraq and kill Iraqis. To note that an impeachable offense has been committed is a gross understatement. George W. Bush has brought this country into plausible comparison with Nazi Germany in opinion of the world's people. Our longterm interests are sustaining grave damage, as our military crumbles away and our treasury empties out.

Now then, can we please make a list of the statements of Capitol Hill Democrats alerting the nation to the momentous fact that George Bush LIED to them in order to start this war?
Can we do it right here? Senators Byrd and Kennedy should be good for the usual words of warning--which other Dems pretend they don't hear.

No particular order need be observed--just jot down as they occur accusations of Presidential LYING to Congress to start an illegal war made by Hill Democrats in public. Let us see charges that they were deceived with false information to trap them into support of Bush's doomed war in Iraq. We shouldn't have much trouble fitting the entire list in below; subtracting Senator Byrd or the excellent Rep. Conyers I think this list of statements would probably fit onto a post-it™ note.

I have waited a long time to hear Democrats publicly charge Bush with lying to Congress and lying to America to start his war. I have stopped waiting in hope because the time when such statements would have made an important difference was last year during the Presidential election between Kerry and Bush. The issue was right there waiting to be announced. WMDs were not found in Iraq, Americans were dying, Iraqis were being slaughtered, and meanwhile all the evidence for believing that the WMDs existed waiting to be found in Iraq was already debunked. (Most of it had been debunked even before the war began) And during the campaign season, nothing was said about the overwhelming likelihood that all this "bad intell" was in actuality deliberate fabrication cooked up by Bush and complicit elements of our intelligence community. It's plausible that CIA makes a mistake--even a few mistakes--but it's not plausible that ALL the things Bush said could be mistaken (as they proved to be) without there being a deliberate program TO LIE at the bottom of all these "mistakes". And STILL TODAY, even as Iraq stands on the brink of becoming a Shia dominated Islamist Republic allied with IRAN (with a Category 5 internecine civil war brewing in its belly), they STILL are saying nothing about the LIES. They don't even acknowledge that the war aim has miscarried to the point of creating the VERY OPPOSITE of what it was supposed to create.
They continue to talk, if they dare talk at all, about 'the process' and 'seeing it through' and the regrettable consequences of 'bad intell' and other shit of that insane nature.

Now I don't happen to believe Congressional Democrats necessarily believed these lies that they were told (if you were that gullible you'd be too stupid to feed yourself unassisted). By and large they surely knew what was up. BUT these people whom we call Senators and Representatives are this country's only defense against a paranoid, militarist, monarchical takeover; it's their... y'know... sacred duty... to defend whatever's left the American Republic and the Constitution of 1787. If they actually feel Bush told them these lies, as you say, in starting his war, then they damn well better come out and SAY SO. They owe the American people that much at a minimum.

[globalvillage]

71. Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S.

Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S.

Senate leaders from both parties heading an inquiry of intelligence information on Iraq yesterday repudiated Sen. John Kerry's accusation that the Bush administration misled the country into war, and accused him of political posturing.

Mr. Kerry made the accusations against Mr. Bush while campaigning in Lebanon, N.H., on Wednesday.
"I will not let off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally. I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r...


One speaks out and gets slammed by his own party. Some things never change.

[kenny blankenship]

73. Conyers' memo to Bush should bear the signatures of every Democrat

on Capitol Hill.

[globalvillage]

74. Wasn't Conyers' letter from the house?

The DSM letter?

edit content
Sorry, it was the hearing that was House Reps only, not the letter. That was signed by over half a million of us.

on edit, here's Kerry and other Senators' letter re the DSM.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/515

[kenny blankenship]

75. Fine, it should bear every House Democrat's sig

and there should be a duplicate memo requesting clarification on the same matters bearing the signature of every Senate Democrat.

And another signed by every statehouse representative from our Party and another signed by every Mayor and Councilman who calls him or herself a Democrat.

The DSM matter is only one link--a particularly convincing and decisive link--of an already established chain of evidence proving high crimes of state have been committed by Bush and his administration. It has as much bearing on the legitimacy of our endangered form of government as Diebold and stolen elections do.
I can't believe Hill Democrats would need little people like we who post at DU to explain to them that the reckless abuses of the Bush Administration and the Bush War deserve their full attention, as a duty that is placed on them by their office.

Look, if Democrats don't want to share in the blame (which is coming like a tidal wave) for Bush's quagmire in Iraq, and the blame for the humanitarian disaster it is and the even worse disaster it threatens to become, and if they don't want to be implicated in his trashing of the United Nations and of the whole international system of cooperation and law, which Presidents of both parties have worked for and staked many many American lives on ever since the middle of WWII, and if they don't want to be seen as helping him shred the Constitution and set up an Imperial dynasty, then they'd damn well better find the nerve to start charging him with the blame in plain language for these abuses and disasters and deceptions. It starts with calling a lie, a lie, and a crime a crime.

The poster I'm responding to said in effect don't say boo to the Democrats who're still pro-war--they were lied to by Bush and it's all his (Bush's) fault. Well OK, yes he lied to them. But if he was lying to them and they're just now finding this out (which was the situation widely understood even before the war began), then shouldn't these suddenly disillusioned Democrats be standing on the tops of cars in traffic TODAY, RIGHT NOW trying to get a news camera to hear them explain that the President is a liar who has abused his office in deceiving Congress and misled the nation into a terrible and disastrous war? If what she alleged about Bush is true then a terrible crime has been committed--is still being committed in fact--and it's time, isn't it, for denunciations to fly and fingers to point?
What we have here is a Constitutional crisis, with one branch of government subverting the authority of another (by fraud) in the furtherance of an illegal aim--or at least Constitutional crisis is is what they used to call it back when we had a legitimate government that could be afflicted with such things.

Now then if our Congressional Dems aren't reacting to Bush's lying to them, and to his crimes of international aggression, and to his violation of the Constitution with the appropriate reaction--that is, with outrage, with an urgent alert to the country that things are dangerously out of normal and that things dangerously out of Constitutional bounds have been occuring in Washington--then they are failing in their primary duty as guardians of our constitutional government, and whether they wish it or not they are giving vital assistance to Bush in maintaining the illusion of normalcy around his illegitimate rule.

If they were lied to it's very important that they tell the country they've been lied to--that the country has been lied to. If they aren't willing to do that much--to point out the lie and explain that Bush misled us and that terrible consequences have arisen from this lie--then they certainly aren't entitled to the benefit of the doubt from anyone. People are excusing them saying they were lied to. Let them say so themselves--until then they are in a functional and moral sense, part of the problem.

[globalvillage]

76. You don't have to convince me.

So, why did Kerry's letter get so few senate sigs? Click the link.

[kenny blankenship]

80. I'll click on that, but I can't explain why the cowardice and cravenness

except as examples of what cowards and people bereft of principles do when the pressure is on and their country needs them.

I say I've given up waiting to hear them fight back for their honor, but well, better late than never. If they found the nerve to stand up with Kerry's letter or Conyer's then that would count for something. If they keep going where Karl Rove leads them by the halter, they will get no credit from the people for trying to avert this disaster, and Republicans will still blame them for "stabbing the troops in the back" They have an unerring knack for finding the lose-lose position and sticking with it.

[Sparkman]

101. Good discussion, no name calling and history recounted. REVIEW REVIEW REV

IEV. That's how the lesson's are illustrated and memorized, for the next battle. Cooperation for the sake of the pack. It's hard for non-proffesionals to remember the details. And the devil is in those details. EVERY account of how * lied, and how Dems had to work out perception of what is really going on shows the quality difference between the party in control (them), and the value of the opposition party (us)?

[LittleClarkie]

83. Here's a link I have from a Will Pitt article

http://www.liberalslant.com/wrp121003.htm

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.” 

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.” 

[Sparkman]

104. Good, * let us down by not being true to the IWR. good good good.

[IndianaGreen]

86. The Democrats knew they were being lied to, or were incompetent

The British press had debunked every WMD claim made by Bush officials. Colin Powell's speech to the UN was debunked as he was giving it! The British press revealed that Powell had referred to a graduate student's paper on Iraq's WMD program PRIOR to the Gulf War, but Powell had depicted it as a study on current WMD program.

Millions of Americans contacted their representatives in Congress appealing for peace, all to no avail.

The Democrats that voted for IWR were either stupid for believing Bush, or they knew they were being lied to. I believed they knew they were being lied to!

They followed the DLC advise to vote for IWR in order to concentrate on domestic issues. They thought the war would be over within days and that no one would care about Iraq afterwards. Who cares if Bush lied about WMD if our troops are victorious in Firdos Square? This is why people like Kerry were so jubilant when Iraq was conquered. They loved it!

Too bad for them that the Iraqi people were not so agreeable!

[kodi]

67. so the democrats use as an excuse that "bush lied to us?" WTF?

THAT MEANS THAT THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WERE DUMBER THAN DIRT TO BELIEVE SUCH A MAN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

so now we are supposed to rally around a group of blithering idiots whose claim for support is that they were duped, but were not devious, lying mother fuckers?

no way. virtually every democrat in congress supported IWR and gave bush the go-ahead because they were scared shitless of the elections of 2002. only a few had the guts to stand up and call a spade a spade. i didn't trust them then, i certainly do not trust them now.

by their actions in looking out after their own petty political careers instead of looking out for the interests of the nation, they have abdicated any claim to leadership.

fuck them all. let their families die in wars. leave mine the hell out of this fucking mess.

in september, my little brother heads back to the gulf for his second tour in harm's way in three years. if he dies, i will blame the democrats every bit as much as the busheviks for his death.

[EVDebs]

68. A Gulf of Tonkin / WMD inquiry into the LIES this war was based upon

"The Democrats voted for, wanted, and lost the war in Iraq." The Iraq War Resolution, ahem, was based upon LIES.

This inevitably results in a charge of abuse of Congress and federal agencies...and an impeachment resolution.

No other logical way out for the Republican Party. They cannot blame the Democrats for this one. Didn't their mother's tell them, you can't have your cake and eat it too ?

[FrenchieCat]

79. How about Frank Rich blaming the fucking Corporate media

while he's at it? I mean those who voted for the resolution did so because of the media's handling all of the obvious lies told.

In fact the Corporate media needs to be in line of blame right after the Bush Admin.

The Democrats who voted for it were doing so for their own political reasons and future......but they should carry the least blame out of the three.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Why is it they seem to be the first on the lips of many?

I just hate broad brush statements and accusations.

And I wonder if it's a matter of being harder on family than you are on outsiders (harder on Dems than on Repubs, that is) because, as a friend of mine said, you criticize those you think can change for the better as opposed to a lost cause. Is that why folks seem to be harder on Dems than on Repubs?

[welshTerrier2]

84. fwiw, i'd like to try to answer your question

i've heard many repeat this exact point you've raised ... and in terms of discussion on DU, i completely agree that many do indeed SEEM to accuse Democrats more than they accuse bush or the MSM ...

in fact, i'd be more than willing to own up to that myself ...

let me assure you, that bush, the neo-cons and their corporate masters are one of the most evil forces the world has ever seen ... they wield sufficient power and are driven by nothing but greed to be able to exert almost total control over the entire globe ... and their apologists in the MSM have been bought and paid for ...

so why all the bad press on DU for Democrats?

my view is that it is because many of us do NOT expect the republican party to represent us ... we do not expect to hear our ideas disseminated by the MSM ... for many of us, the evil of the corporate cabal with its stranglehold on our government and the complicity of their PR arm in the MSM is a given ... i've written post after post after post talking about American imperialism and how all federal policy is written by and written for the benefit of trans-national corporations, especially in the oil industry ... and while this has been going on under both republican and Democratic administrations, bush and his oily friends have truly raised it to an art form ...

so, the truth is, there are many, many posts from those of us on "the left" that do, indeed, attack the right-wing ... but many of these posts do so via policy rather than what i understand you to be measuring ... many posts criticize the corporate-owned media or the pharmaceutical industry's stranglehold on desperately needed drugs or big oil's stranglehold on virtually everything ... these ARE attacks on republicans and their "free" market catering to profits before people ...

the volume of criticism you see directly focussed on Democrats is the result of our frustration that they ultimately are our only hope to fight against the horrid policies we often post about ... and i'm sure you understand that we see a Democratic Party either with their hand out to the very same corporations OR a Democratic Party too timid to talk about America's dirty little secret: we have lost our democracy to corporate America ...

what many of us are fighting for is a voice in the Democratic Party to address the issues we feel are most important ... many do not believe the Party has been responsive ... making a forceful case that republicans "don't represent us", of course, would make no sense ... that, we take as a given ... whether our views of the Democratic Party's failure to represent us are justified or not, that is nevertheless the view we hold (if i am speaking fairly for others) and it is what leads to the frequent criticism of Democrats you see on DU ... we don't hold the view, at least i don't, that Democrats are "worse than republicans"; not by a very long shot ... republicans and their corporate masters are the ultimate evil we fight against ... but, because we hold the view that Democrats are in the best position to address the issues we care about but have not done so, highlighting their shortcomings becomes the first-step on the road to the ultimate battle ... we are fighting for control and influence in our own Party first; without influence here, our agenda against republican tyranny will never be realized ...

i'm not sure that clarifies anything but that's exactly how i see this issue ... i guess in the end, this was a very long way of saying that i agree with the observation you yourself made: "you criticize those you think can change for the better as opposed to a lost cause" ...

[Sparkman]

106. harder except in the voting booth. ANY Dem, CONS/LIB beats lock-step Repb

BECAUSE THEY ARE 1ST AT THE FEEDING TROUGH. At least conservative Dems arefurther down the pipe at this point, and have some wiggle room on their commitment to support the war profiteers and the neocon's overall agenda. Count the Repub anti-warriors...how many voted against the IWR? Is it hot in here, or am I just weak?

[mattclearing]

87. We didn't want it like they did - Here's a plan.

1. Democrats didn't want to use Iraq as a way to give sweetheart deals to corporations.

2. Democrats didn't want to use Iraq as a testing ground for a ground force too small to finish the job.

3. Democrats didn't vote unanimously for the war, and were clearly much more conflicted about it than the Republicans.

There are some Democrats who clearly were bankrupt on this war. I'm sad to say that John Kerry, who seems totally unlikely to have supported this war were it not for his presidential ambitions, was one of them.

The Democrats who truly believed this war was necessary can at least sleep at night knowing that they thought they did the right thing.

But Democrats cannot and will not take the fall for this war.

Everyone knows that this is George Bush's war, and no amount of loudmouthing punditry will change that.

As long as Democrats are willing to hang this war and George Bush around the necks of the Republicans, they have nothing to fear of this spin.

[Lerkfish]

89. WRONG: voting your political career instead of conscience

heading too big to fit:

this is what is wrong with voting your perception of personal political advantage instead of your conscience.

ALL the politicians (with notable exceptions) held their nose and voted for the war.
they were lied to, as was the rest of the country, but at least some of them on the intelligence committee knew something was hinky.

It was a mistake to accede power to an individual to trump the checks and balances. Our congresscritters COULD have stood on principal, but the prevailing political landscape at the time proved that doing so meant a full force "unpatriotic" smear from BushCo.

however, having once fallen back from that first opportunity, retreat or capitulation become the prevailing strategy until recently.

just IMHO.

[sofa king]

90. If we had to fight it, the Democrats wanted to WIN the war.

What specifically were the Democrats demanding in return for a yes vote?

* Proper justification
* Proper allocation of force to space
* An exit strategy

But of course, the President deceived Congress, either willingly or stupidly. Donald Rumsfeld breezily dismissed Democrat concerns that too few troops were committed to the occupation. And since the Bush Administration is busy completing over a dozen permanent bases in Iraq, we can now conclude that there is no exit strategy because the neocons have no intention of exiting Iraq.

Yeah, a whole lot of us knew they were bullshitting from the get-go. But when confronted with the weight of a deceived public's desire to punish someone--anyone--for the attacks of September 11, 2001, they at least tried to ensure that it would be an honest and straightforward effort.

[IndianaGreen]

110. That's like a German wanting Hitler to win the war!

"If we had to fight it, the Democrats wanted to WIN the war."

I am sorry, but the argument that you are making illustrates how morally bankrupt our political system has become. The US invasion of Iraq was on the same moral plane as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Germany's invasion of Poland, Japan's invasion of China. There is no way in hell that a moral person can support war of aggression, by anyone!

The political Left is not the only raising this issue:

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected

by Mark and Louise Zwick

John Paul II has sought to distance the Catholic Church from George Bush's idea of the manifest Christian destiny of the United States, and especially to avoid the appearance of a clash of Christian civilization against Islam. Zenit reported that in his Easter Sunday message this year John Paul II "implored for the world's deliverance from the peril of the tragic clash between cultures and religions." The Pope also sent his message to terrorists: "Let there be an end to the chain of hatred and terrorism which threatens the orderly development of the human family." As he had done in his invitation to religious leaders from many faiths to Assisi at the beginning of 2002, he reached out again to leaders of other religions: "May faith and love of God make the followers of every religion courageous builders of under-standing and forgiveness, patient weavers of a fruitful inter-religious dialogue, capable of inaugurating a new era of justice and peace."

Catholic World News quoted the Latin-rite Bishop of Baghdad, Bishop Jean-Benjamin Sleimaan as saying in the Italian daily La Repubblica that the Pope's high-profile opposition to a war on Iraq has helped to avoid a sort of Manichaeism that would set up an opposition between the West and the East, in which Christianity is linked to the West and Islam to the East.

While the Iraqi War II turned out to be "short," violations of "just war" principles abounded. Bombing included such targets as an open market and a hotel where the world's journalists were staying. While most television and newspaper reports in the United States minimized coverage of deaths and injuries to the Iraqi people, reports of many civilian casualties did come out. CBS news reported on April 7 stories of civilians pouring into hospitals in Baghdad, threatening to over-whelm medical staff, and the damage inflicted by bombs which targeted homes: "The old, the young, men and women alike, no one has been spared. One hospital reported receiving 175 wounded by midday. A crater is all that remains of four families and their homes-obliterated by a massive bomb that dropped from the sky without warning in the middle afternoon." The Canadian press carried a Red Cross report of "incredible" levels of civilian casualties from Nasiriyah, of a truckload of dismembered women and children arriving at the hospital in Hilla from that village, their deaths the result of "bombs, projectiles."

As talk escalated about a U. S. attack on Iraq, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, began stating unequivocally that "The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." His comments had been published as early as September 2002 and were repeated several times as war seemed imminent.

http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html

[Proud Liberal Dem]

93. Dems Who Voted For IWR Should Be Held Accountable But........

Although I agree with many on this board about the need to hold the Dems who voted for the IWR accountable, I have never believed for a single moment that if we had Gore or Kerry as President that we would have ever gone into Iraq, IWR or no IWR. Both Bush I (GOP) and Clinton (DEM) recognized the danger of invading and, by necessity, occupying Iraq (or any middle eastern country) and WISELY chose NOT to do so. Although what most Dems did by voting for the IWR is morally indefensible and makes them, at least, accessories to Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq, their actions can be understood to some extent as reacting to the public emotion that was then still running really high about terrorism and the threats of WMD attacks helped along, of course, by Bush. I don't believe that turning them out of office is the best strategy as we need to keep as many Dems in Congress as possible to help fight off the GOP agenda because no matter how "illiberal" many Dems are they are at least somewhat better than Bush/GOP IMHO but we definitely need to put some more pressure on them to denounce Bush/GOP's Iraq fiasco and make sure that the public knows who is REALLY to blame for it. Lest we forget NOBODY in the Democratic Party (right now) has the legal authority to order military forces into combat.

[Coastie for Truth]

94. How are we (literally, DUers) going to stop it?

I went to a fund raiser picnic for our local (Progressive) Democratic Club. The question there was

How are we (literally, PROGRESSIVES) going to stop it?

Grass roots - not rallies and marches -- but one on one in the church parking lot, at the coffee machine (okay, espresso machine), at Kiwanis and Rotary and Little League, networking through your friends and neighbors and co-workers.

[sunnystarr]

96. Bush and those in the administration that were serving

at "his pleasure" totally lied to Congress. It's time to ask every R and D if knowing what they now know they would cast the same vote. Let them stand up and be counted or forever hang their heads in shame. If they stand up and say NO then they have the responsibility to end this illegal war.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

97. We wanted to win the war. * gave us a fiasco. You can't blame us for

wanting to end the fiasco.

[kenny blankenship]

100. Why did you want to win the war? Why did you think you could?

Why participate in starting it at all?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

102. party line, not my line. I was anti-war from the start. But my party's

leaders, with their political cowardice, got themselves into a rhetorical pickle by voting to authorize war, at least in some form. The only way out, IMHO, is for them to say they got a mess they had no authority over instead of what they authorized.

[Sparkman]

98. 1. ANY Dem could re-organize Iraq, and have success at a real COALITION.

this includes Kerry/Edwards. Only idealistic Dems think Kerry would be in this quamire today. Nixon shared a 10 year VNam with the Dems because the Repubs best foot forward is their CHAIN-GANG affiliation with the war profiteers. Is Kerry's family into War Acme Inc?
2.The reshaping of U.S. Iraq policy get's no traction unless the Repubs are blaimed for the media manipulation that DECEIVED us (WMD/Al Qaeda ties to Saddam/Nuke threat/coalition of willing etc).
3. The Repubs/Bush Aristocracy will not DISOWN THEIR OIL INTERESTS
secured by the U.S. military and our 20 permanent basis in the region.
Only a non-oilagarchy faction of the U.S. government can proove to the WORLD THAT WE WILL ALLOW THE IRAQIS TO CONTROL THEIR OIL.
4. The insane and non-Christian U.S. RW fundies control part of the REPUBs, not part of the Dems!! This is how we demonstrate the Islamic bashing and OIL frenzy can stop, and be replaced by a secular and rational mid-east policy. No NEOCON faction can do that.
5. Did we ask for the Repub controlled voting machines? No, so the Dems can replace the failed Diebold proprietary software monopoly with an OPEN SOURCE philosophy. Will this matter...in U.S. politics?
6. later

[CWebster]

99. The NYTimes should speak

despite their feeble apologies---was beating the drums and denying the reality along with all the others who are now facing the harsh glare of shattered fabrications.

We screamed bloody murder to those Democratic pols now straining to preserve a modicum of credibility. Let 'em stew in their juices. We deserve better.

[FrankChurch]

109. The DLC is the problem

The way they slam the left and try to suck up to the mods and the rigid right. They are selling the party out. We already have a right wing party.

Hillary better wise up or she will loose.

[Arkana]

112. Nice try, but this won't work.

People will be fully aware that it was Dubya and Unka Dick who created this war. This one's a bit too much of a stretch.

[iconoclastic cat]

125. I think there will have to be an effort to *make* it work.

Public awareness and all that.

[TayTay]

113. This is a stupid argument. It should be rejected.

The Rethugs own this fuckup of a war. They LIED to Congress to get it. They put in place the Intelligence clampdown that caused faulty information to go to Congress. The Downing Street Minutes show this.

The Democrats didn't conceive, plan or execute this monstrous disaster. The Rethugs did. The Democrats didn't tell Rumsfeld to put an insufficient number of troops in Iraq to actually win this war. The Rehtugs did. The Democrats didn't allow Iraq to be looted, their infrastructure destroyed, their businesses destroyed and the country laid waste. The Rethugs did that. The Democrats were summoned for a vote, LIED to with faulty information that made it look like they would be consulted again before an actual war took place and then dismissed as powerless and irrelevant to the war plans.

I refuse to play KKKarl Rove's game on this. (You can waste your time on this bullshit, but I refuse.) The Rethugs are responsible for this fuckup. It's their abortion from top to bottom, they own every friggin phase of it.

The Democrats should be spending their time attacking Bush and his unbelievably inept team of advisers and planners who took America to war under a cloud of LIES. We should be asking Bush what the hell 'the mission' is and how the hell he expects to finish it. It's his fucking war, not mine. He is completely responsible for this and no sleight of hand by Rove with the press is going to offload that onto to anyone else. No friggin way.

[Q]

115. Of course the Bush Republicans are responsible...

...but so is every damn Democrat that wouldn't stand up and call them liars to their faces.

Just like every other fascist dictator in history...Bush couldn't have attained such unchecked power without the 'help' of just enough of the 'loyal' opposition for this 'war' to be called 'bipartisan'.

Rove doesn't give a shit about rank and file Democrats dissenting against their so-called leadership on this 'war'. What he DOES care about is that his Democratic enablers and collaborators stay loyal to Bush and his 'doctine' of unprovoked, aggressive war.

[TayTay]

117. This is a dumb argument

The REthugs are responsible for this war. The Rethugs planned it, executed it and fucked it up. The Democrats voted to let inspectors in and their vote mandated that the President come back to Congress and check in again before he took the nation to war. (Go read the resolution.)

This is a Rethug War. It is their moral responsibility to fix it. If they cannot fix what they fucked up, then they should be forced from office for sheer incompetence. (And be put on trial for treason.)

The moral equivalency argument is a Rethug argument. It's like saying that because you were in the room when a bank robbery took place, you are morally as responsible as the thief. Bullshit. That is a false argument and a false choice. The Democrats do not need to don sackcloth and ashes over this. They need to stand up and point out what the Rethugs did and the bankrupt and morally reprehensible way in which they did it.

[Q]

118. No...the Democrats in question...

...voted for the Iraq WAR resolution. Its other name is:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against
Iraq

If anyone signed THIS resolution hoping for negotiations or peace...they were either naive or complicit.

I had to laugh at your 'bank robber' metaphor. Certainly you're not suggesting that the Democrats who voted for unprovoked, aggressive war were simply in the 'same room' and didn't actually vote for it?

Or perhaps they didn't know what they were voting for when they signed off on the...

Joint resolution to AUTHORIZE THE USE OF US ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ?

[TayTay]

124. No, I'm saying that this argument is a dog

that assigning to the Democrats the blame for this war is stupid and the wrong argument.

You completely fail to acknowledge that the Rethugs alone conceived, planned and executed this war. You completely fail to hold them accountable for their actions. You are enabling the people who want to hide the blame for this monumental screwup by spreading it around to the people who didn't conceive of, plan or execute this war. Stop it.

The Rethugs own this abortion of a war. We need to hang it around their necks like an anchor. Trying the liberal equivalent of a idiotic circle-jerk wherein we all stand around and feel guilty for something we didn't do is going to give the Rethugs ammunition.

I refuse to play that game. If people want to stand around and play the idiotic purity game ("I'm so pure and wonderful because I feel guilty.") then go ahead. But I believe this plays into Rethug hands and will prolong the death, suffering and length of this war. Wake up, realize who your allies are; pressure them to raise their voices and end this thing. We don't need more things that drive us apart and make the argument even murkier to the general public.

[Q]

132. You want me to "stop" my opinion?

Why? It's no more less valid than yours. You seem to have missed the purpose of a political bulletin board.

No one is asking you to 'play that game'. It isn't a game at all. It's deadly serious. Thousands of human beings have died because George wanted to be a 'war president' and certain Democrats wanted to look presidential and 'tough on national security' issues.

There was a time when Democrats who voted for this atrocity could have redeemed themselves by admitting that they had made a 'mistake' in trusting Bush or giving one man the ability to declare and wage war on any country he says are harboring terrorists.

Democrat's 'allies' are those who tell the truth and honor their oath to their office and Constitution.

[TayTay]

134. Exactly. This is NOT a GAME

People are dying. The country is under attack from these Rethug bastards. We need to unite, get the word out on what the fuck they are doing and take back this country.

I will back any Decmoract for office that runs as long as my payoff is John Conyers as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Because that, my friend, is an ultimate good.

As for the free speech argument, please, that is the king of false arguments. You know and I know that DU allows all people to express an opinion. To invoke the fake 'free speech' argument, when someone is actually using that argument to shut up an opponent is ridiculous. No one here has the power to shut me up or you. And that is as it should be .

But free speech demands that you answer for what you say, have a cogent argument that holds up against oppostion and that is backed by at least some facts. When that happens you get a real discussion, not just blowhard 'cable tv' type nothingness. No one who actually does their homework and backs up their arguments does anything but laugh in the face of this idiotic false argument.

[whometense]

130. "Democratic enablers and collaborators"

Maybe some of them are. Maybe. What possible good do you expect to come of these blanket condemnations of the only opposition party we have? We should be pulling together to oppose the criminals in power.

If democrats are not even hearing what Kerry's been saying loudly and clearly for the past 9 months I'd suggest the media are to blame for not telling people what he's saying. I understand his position with perfect clarity from listening to his speeches and reading his emails. What's their excuse? And what's yours for perpetuating right wing lies and spin about him?

By the way, the authorization was to allow force IF THE INSPECTIONS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO PROCEED. To ignore that fact is to lie about what actually happened.

[Q]

133. Yes...we SHOULD be pulling together to oppose BushCo...

...so why aren't we? Why are so many Dems supporting the worst of Bush's policies?

Please take the time to read the WAR resolution again. There is nothing in it that forces Bush to work with the UN or inspections. Several Dems DID try to get amendments passed that would have FORCED Bush to come back to congress for a new authorization to use force. It was a very sensible amendment that was rejected by the same Democrats who voted for this boondoggle.

I've been a VOTING Democrat for over thirty years. But that doesn't mean I believe in

MY PARTY RIGHT OR WRONG.

The Democrats who voted against this war had it right. Those who voted for it show their weakness with their inability to admit they were wrong.

[ChiciB1]

114. Well, We COULD Look At This As A Call To Arms For The Democrats!

Now that they are being harpooned in the NYT, they might come out of their shells and take a stand.

Regardless, we have to remain steadfast that we support Cindy and what she has started and we have to keep marching forward.

Next Stop Washington D.C., and here we come!

[Emit]

119. Here's an interesting analysis of the IWR and other

amendments that were put forth during the lead up to war (having read Byrd's book, "Losing America" I was aware of some of this info, but not all of it.) At a minimum, this link provides a good summary of who voted for what:

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050321/005599.html

Had the rest of the Democratic Party voted with anti-war Democrats
against the Iraq War, there would have been enough votes to prevent
the war. The Spratt amendment would have passed, the final vote in
the House would have ended in a tie, Senator Robert Byrd could have
filibustered the resolution, the Levin and Durbin amendments would
have passed, and the final vote in the Senate would have been 52-48
against the war resolution.

See the breakdown of major Congressional votes about the Iraq War
below. You realize that the Republican Party functions as a
political party, with impressive party discipline, but the Democratic
Party doesn't.

<<snip>>

29 Democrats joined with 48 Republicans to produce the majority of
77. Had all Democrats voted against the resolution, the resolution
would have failed, 52-48.

In short, Congress couldn't have mustered the support for the Iraq
War without pro-war Democrats. Anti-war politicians in the
Democratic Party should leave the party and establish a new one with
Jeffords (I-VT), Chafee (R-RI), Greens, etc.

[moondust]

121. The IWR was created by Republicans

hungry to abuse their power to trap democrats in an "anti-national defense" position and score political points. As such it is illegitimate legislative junk that belongs in a dumpster--not on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

It was designed from day one as a no-win proposition for democrats. Those who voted for it were wrong but I have a hard time summarily denouncing them because the cards were carefully stacked against them by Satan's little helpers.

[whometense]

131. Bingo.

Well said.

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. DU has *egged it on*

DU and the rest of the liberal blogs, since 2003, have spent healthy amounts of time blaming Democrats for the Iraq quagmire with equal zest as they do Bush, despite the fact that the IWR, had it been followed to the letter, would not have ended in war. BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED - this should and should have been the mantra, but some would rather play fucking politics and jockey for intraparty position by attacking other Dems. It was fucking disgraceful at the time and yes, is causing problems for us now. But people got what they wanted, I suppose. x(

[kenny blankenship]

129. So let them say it.

You say Bush lied. I say it. He lied about everything--practically everyone here understands this.

What about the lawmakers he lied to?
Let them say it.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Gyre]

126. "How are we (literally, DUers) going to stop it?"

Do everything you can to kick the DLC to the curb. The fact is that the center of the Dem party "aided and abetted" shrub's war. Can't get around that.

[Chicago1]

127. you can put as much lipstick & perfume on the pig

BUT it's still a pig.

This IDIOT is the one in office and the GOP are the ones with the majority in the Congress SO it's their fault.