For those who stand by the IWR litmus test + won't vote "pro-war" can

[youngred]

You would do well to remember the context of Fall of 2002.

On October 11, 2002 the Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution. Like many DUers I was glued to my TV screen watching and counting the votes as they were cast. Knowing early on that it would pass I watched with anger as Senator after Senator...those same senators that the GOP is so fond of calling Marxist Lie-Berals...betray the peace movement and give George Bush a war he and the PNAC folks had been planning for years. However, I understood.

At the times Bush's approval rating was in the low 80s and upper 70s, a slip from the previous october, but still a strong majority of the population. The November mid-term elections were less than a month away and the public greatly favoured the war. It was 13 months to the day after the attacks of September 11th and around the same time as the anthrax attacks put the capitol and major news organizations on their toes for any letter that looked like it had white powder of any kind in it. We had the full dossier from Powell declaring how many WMDs we "knew" Saddam to have. There was no hint (except on the far left and here at DU) from anyone that Bush could be lying or exaggerating his claim.

For Democrats it was a time of fear. Holding the slimest of slim majorities in 1/2 of 1/3 of government, and left with Senators such as Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman the Democrats did NOT have much of a choice or a chance. The Democrats held the senate 50-49, and if one of their senators defected the tie goes to Dick Cheney.

In that atmosphere votes against the IWR would have been political suicide. The Democrats as a whole realized this and many of them chose to vote against their conscience with the hope that the UN or Saddam would find a way to prove W wrong.

Hindsight gives you all comfotable assurance, but you didnt have to vote. You weren't faced with that choice. You weren't living with the prospect of death by WMD (anthrax) in your office or political suicide that would hand the reins of power to Bush. You had the convience of being non-elected partisans. The country no longer has that kind of luxury.

Some of our candidates made the wrong choice. Some knew the right one from the beginning. Some stayed silent and came to their position with the changing political winds. ALL of them however, (well except Lieberman) are going to bring our troops home sooner, and restore our image faster than George W. Bush. So, if you, like I really opposed Bush and the Iraq war, you would work your hardest to get him out of office...before he strikes again.

I may despise the Iraq vote, and my anger that day was only mitigated by grudging understanding of their position. You are all empathetic liberals, put yourself EXACTLY in that time and place and tell me how many of you would have voted against the IWR.

Peace

[sangh0]

1. I don't think many DUers are capable of imagining what they thought

back then. I was on DU back then, and I remember there were a large number of posts containing a blurry photo of Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam, accompanied by text and links showing that Rumsfeld (and other BFEE members) had sold WMD's to Saddam. Now, these same people are saying they KNEW Saddam didn't have any WMD's.

Back then it was "Saddam has WMD's because we sold them to him"
Now it's "I always knew Saddam had no WMD's"

[deutsey]

7. Actually, I was basing my opposition on what I was reading

in alternative media, which were citing intelligence analysts in America and around the world (along with Blix) saying that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the US or the region.

[sangh0]

11. response

True, but I was not talking about "imminent threat". Most of us knew that back then. What we didn't know (back then) is whether or not Iraq had WMD's.

But now, everyone KNEW back then that there were no WMD's.

But I remember that blurry picture of Rummy and Saddam

[David__77]

21. What does the "picture of Rumsfeld" have to do with it?

The picture points to the hypocrisy of the US cries against Iraq about the weapons which the US gave them. It certainly does not mean that war opponents were conceding to the falsehood that Iraq possessed them during the buildup to the last war.

[sangh0]

26. The picture was used

to argue that Iraq did have WMD's because we sold them to them.

[Walt Starr]

36. Actually, tht was not the argument

the argument was that the only WMDs that could possibly exist in Iraq were sold to them by the U.S. in the late eighties which meant that those WMDs were useless on the battlefield because they had already exceeded their shelf life long ago.

[youngred]

39. having been an avid DU reader

and poster at that time, submitting almost 1,000 posts a week....I don't remember that argument ever being posited

[Walt Starr]

42. Come on, it was even in Pitt's book!

I saw it time after time!

[youngred]

44. well i didn't read Pitt's book

but I did read DU religiously as moderator and member.

[Walt Starr]

46. I read it religiously as a member

and recall post after post making the argument.

[youngred]

58. well do you have a link for that assertion

otherwise its agree to disagree

[sangh0]

82. I remember that argument, but it's fallacious

Anthrax and many chemical weapons do not have a shelf life.

[Walt Starr]

83. Since I have never been able to find DU1

let alone be able to search it, I'll agree to disagree.

[sangh0]

78. Anthrax has no shelf life

It can survive for decades and you don't need sophisticated facilities to make more

[youngred]

16. No threat is different than no weapons

It was painfully obvious that Saddam was no threat. It was not so obivous that he didn't have the weapons (esp considering the way he acted about inspectors).

[sangh0]

27. And at the time, many Duers said

"I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out Saddam does have WMD's"

[youngred]

37. I freely admit to being one

I "knew" Saddam had weapons. I did oppose the war with all my heart and efforts though.

[redqueen]

10. Oversimplification

He did, and then there was Gulf War I, then years of weekly bombings, plus massive surveillance.

Yes, we knew he had them.

Yes, we destroyed his ability to make any more, after we bombed the crap out of Iraq the first time.

[sangh0]

18. Yes and no

I didn't include every single detail. However, there was no evidence at that time that all of Iraq's WMD's had been destroyed (the UN inspecters had been withdrawn before that could be determined) and therefore, NO ONE KNEW if Saddam had WMD's. People had opinions, but no one knew

[redqueen]

22. Wrong again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=223400&mesg_id=224134&page=

[sangh0]

30. That's just bizarre

1) Powell is not a credible source
2) Powell doesn't say "There are no WMD's" He speaks of imminent threats, and large #'s of WMD's, etc.

[redqueen]

41. Powell is not a credible source?

Wasn't he the guy going to the UN to convince them? Why is he not credible to you? Who should be the 'go to' person?

Let's be clear -- this is not about the existence of ANY amount of WMD's. Certainly it is obvious that the American public would not support a war so we can get rid of some paperwork and precursors.

Or do you think they would?



From that link:

Exactly one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: “Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. “The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now.”

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. “It was 95 per cent charade,” a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush ’s closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat -to America, Europe or the Middle East. In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: “He (Saddam Hussein)has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”. Two months later Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq.

[sangh0]

84. No, Powell is not a credible source

Liars never are

[redqueen]

90. LOL

Are you saying that Powell was lying when he said that Iraq was no threat, or that he was lying when he addressed the UN about 'tons' of WMD stockpiles?

You can't have it both ways, you know.

[sangh0]

102. I am saying that Powell is a liar

and if you want to know what I think Powell's lies are, all you had to do was ask instead of implying that I'm trying to have it both ways.

[redqueen]

105. I did ask n/t

[sangh0]

119. I'll be clearer then

I want a sincere question, not a leading question.

You didn't ask me what I thought Powell's lies were. You limited the choices to two and asked me to pick.

But since you ask, IMO Pakistan is NOT a good ally in the War on Terrorism.

[David__77]

60. The inspectors would never, ever determine "no weapons."

This cannot be determined. But there is no evidence that Iraq does indeed possess them.

[redqueen]

68. No kidding - simple logic

However -- the fact remains, that there was no evidence that they posessed the amounts that these BASTARDS had to hype up to get the public to acquiesce to waging an illegal war.

It absolutely SICKENS me to see the same hyped numbers and exaggerations here in defense of our traitorous Democrat leaders who don't deserve our votes, but will get them because we're all so freaking great at fear-based decision making.

[youngred]

69. You can't prove a negative

which was one of my best arguments for giving the inspectors more time.

There is no evidence NOW that there were weapons, there seemed to be at the time...and EVERYONE agreed on that Israeli, French, German, English, US and UN intelligence and inspectors all believed that he had weapons. And its disingenuous for many DUers to claim now that they knew all along.

[redqueen]

75. What?!!!

"There is no evidence NOW that there were weapons, there seemed to be at the time...and EVERYONE agreed on that Israeli, French, German, English, US and UN intelligence and inspectors all believed that he had weapons."

Please, link to some of those oh-so-convincing reports that he had WMD's in the quantities which they said, because that's the only reason they managed to bully the public into supporting the illegal war.

[youngred]

79. I didn't say they were convincing or right

I full well know how they bullied us into the bullshit war. I was an anti-war activist writing letters organizing for marches, making calls, writing letters and columns in the paper. However, NO ONE (alright perhaps Dennis, but he got even less coverage then than the does now), was certain whether or not Saddam had the weapons (hell Saddam himself thought he had more than he did).

[redqueen]

95. Ridiculous!!!!

This is bull$#&* through and through.

And your comment about Saddam thinking he had more than he did comes straight out of the bush apologia playbook.

Sorry, but it was not only Dennis who knew the truth.

Many, many intelligence agencies knew that he did not, and could not possibly posess, enough WMDs to warrant a pre-emptive war.

Do you remember the Nuclear Intelligence Review, perhaps?

[youngred]

103. So Kay is a Bush apologist?

so where are these many reports you claim?

I remember the NIR indeed, it said he didn't have nukes, and likely wouldn't. Then again Bush never claimed he had nukes, but he did lie and say they were close....but you know what a lot of people believed that lie.

[redqueen]

111. YES he's a bush apologist!

OMFG I thought that was common knowledge!

The NIE did not only address nukes. It said that he was no threat. Period.

Yes, many people believed that lie, in part because:

Our freaking cowardly dem leaders, some candidates included, decided to parrot bush instead of speaking honestly (like KUCINICH and BYRD).

They should NOT have helped him in his march to war! But they DID!

This is AGONY!

[youngred]

117. No, its not common knowledge

esp not after yesterday. OMFG!!!!!!

Show me the NIR report, it didn't say that there was no threat period, there is no absolute like that in government reports.

Our "freaking cowardly dem leaders" had reason to be afraid, and no matter what they said it was not being reported in the media. The ONLY voice that was clearly and loudly against the war was the Eloquent Sen. Byrd. Do you remember what was said after his opposition? The republicans brought out his KKK connections, they attacked him as old and irrelevant and the press coverage of him focused on how he had become the darling of the "small interenet left".

It wouldn't have mattered what they had done though. With Miller and Lieberman alone they gave Bush his war resolution.

[redqueen]

126. It should be!

Re: David Kay

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0105.html

not sure about that as a source but it doesn't matter... boil away the fat and the meat remains. He's a stooge.


And regarding the NIE (sorry that's National not Nuclear- oopsie) and INR:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51224-2003Jul26?language=printer

No, there are no absolutes. But there is no ignoring reality. The reality is Iraq was no threat.

[youngred]

129. is/was whatever

and that article is from July 27, 2003. Not October 11, 2002.

[redqueen]

134. You're pretty flippant

about an issue which has lost us over 500 soldier's lives, thousands more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi's lives, and God only knows how many wounded (innocent women and children too).

Yes, the article is from July. But the NIE came out in October, and regardless, the facts are still the same. No amount of spin, hype, lies, or anything has changed one singular fact:

that our 'Dem' leaders should not have helped bush in his warmongering

[youngred]

169. Excuse me?

flippant? I know the cost of this war and have always been against it. You're preaching to the choir here, all I'm asking as that people try and look at things objectively rather than rush headlong to attacking people who are capable of ENDING the killing of American troops AND innocent Iraqis. George Bush is not that person. Any dem except Joe Lieberman is.

and no, the facts were not known, and your article doesn't prove that.

I agree that they shouldn't have helped Bush. But they did, and there were reasons for why they did, so instead of calling them warmongers, traitors etc, perhaps it would benefit some on this board to consider those reasons.

[redqueen]

173. Yes, flippant

Your 'whatever' shows it plainly. It's not 'whatever'. It's life and death.

You state that all the Dem candidates 'except Joe' are capable of ending the killing. I agree.

Are they willing? That's more important at this point, wouldn't you say?

You say that they shouldn't have helped bush, but that they had 'reasons'. I don't care what those reasons were, they hurt not only their own duplicitous selves, they hurt the party.

So, considering that I don't consider any weak excuse whatsoever as somehow justifying their betrayal, I will not consider them. No way.

Ask the families of the dead soldiers if they'll consider them. Maybe they'll be more receptive.

Only two candidates had the balls and the self-respect to NOT repeat bush's lies and hype about WMD's. I will never respect any spineless excuse for a dem leader until they renounce and apologize for helping bush with BOTH their vote AND their voice.

[youngred]

177. That was aimed at you

because you can't see the distinction between a former stooge, and someone who has just relased a major bit of damage on bush. You're misinterperting what I'm saying, I apologize for not being clearer.

No, I said they are willing and have all said they will.

You are not going to convince me, and neither am I you, and I have no wish to further have you call me names and insinuate as to my purposes so I will say again PEACE and may we beat Bush in November

[redqueen]

181. Not good enough

He's not a former stooge, he's a stooge. Not former.

Just because you're happy with his latest report does not make him any less an apologist.

And the other candidates have not said they will bring the troops home, they have all said that 'we'll be there for years'.

So not only were they helping bush in the lead up to war, they're also helping the MIC now, by dragging the occupation out.

Until a candidate says he's willing to end the US-managed label from the occupation, they're all still playing nice nice with the MIC.

And please show me where I called you names or insinuated as to your motives.

[sangh0]

88. The inspectors would never, ever determine "no weapons"

But somehow, DUers could determine that there were no WMD's

[redqueen]

97. This is absurd

DUers claiming there were no WMD's can logically be understood to be saying that we are not threatened by Iraq's WMD's, if any exist.

This hair splitting is nauseating!

[youngred]

107. No hairsplitting

I saw many many many claim that yes, there were weapons, but no Saddam was not a threat.

Check the archives from the time

[sangh0]

109. You response was absurd

I have no idea why you keep raising the issue of "threat" when what I'm talking about is whether DUers "knew" Iraq had WMD's or not (which is not necesarily a threat)

[redqueen]

113. Fine

If all you're doing is declaring that DUers are not psychic, I'll leave you to it.

:eyes:

[sangh0]

121. That's is all I am doing

and the reason why I'm doing it is that some DUers seem to think they are (or were) psychic

[deutsey]

54. Good point

.

[David__77]

12. I think that you're mostly wrong...

"Back then it was "Saddam has WMD's because we sold them to him"
Now it's "I always knew Saddam had no WMD's""

First, it's common knowledge that Iraq HAD such weapons. That's not contested by anyone, least of all the former government of Iraq. Just because opponents of the war against Iraq pointed out the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld et al., does not mean that we were claiming that Iraq THEN possessed such weapons. In fact, I did not believe Iraq had them, and said so, among many others. They were destroyed by the Iraqi government and the UN inspectors in the early 90's. Clinton should have lifted the sanctions years ago, and a lot of people said so.

There's no contradiction between pointing to the U.S.'s arming of Baathist Iraq and also acknowledging that Iraq hasn't had these weapons for years.

[sangh0]

24. The UN inspectors did NOT destroy all of Iraqs WMD's

and their reports make that explicit. The "knowledge" that the UN and Iraq's govt destroyed all the WMD's is not supported by the facts.

[girl gone mad]

48. What eactly are you trying to argue..

here?

That some DUers used a photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein in the 1980s to point out the hypocrisy of the administration's claims that Saddam in posession of WMDs was a grave threat which needed to be addressed immediately?

Do you see the flaw in your logic?

WMDs or not, the vast majority of DUers at that time believed that Iraq was not a serious threat to our security, and that war was an unnecessary action.

I was extremely disappointed in the vote, and do not believe it would have been "political suicide" to vote against it. The polls from that time certainly do not support that argument.

[sangh0]

93. That's not what I'm arguing

I'm saying that people on DU used the photo to argue that Iraq did have WMD's, the proof being that we sold the WMD's to them.

WMDs or not, the vast majority of DUers at that time believed that Iraq was not a serious threat to our security, and that war was an unnecessary action.

I agree, that's why I didn't say that Iraq was a serious threat, or that DUers thought Iraq was a serious threat. WHat I said is that a lot of DUers are now saying "They knew" Saddam had no WMD's when my memory contradicts those statements.

[David__77]

50. What reports?

Are you referring to descrepancies in Iraqi statistics on destroyed stockpiles versus statistics for those originally held? I cannot ascribe the presence of many tons of agents to what in all likelihood could be a clerical error.

[sangh0]

96. The reports from the IAEA

.

[David__77]

138. The atomic agency?

So you think Iraq has nuclear weapons?

[sangh0]

143. Wrong question

Not "So you think Iraq has nuclear weapons?"

It's "Back then, did I think Iraq HAD nuclear weapons?"

The answer is "Back then, I didn't know. Maybe he had them, and maybe he didn't"

[goodhue]

52. there is no contradiction

The US sold the weapons which were used to gas the kurds in 1989. But since at least 1993 Iraq has had no stockpiles of WMD.

[sangh0]

110. How did you know that?

But since at least 1993 Iraq has had no stockpiles of WMD

[Tinoire]

89. Not all. Some were pretty clear that Saddam had no WMDs

I know I was & I remember a few other very vocal people saying the same thing but you are correct that it wasn't everyone. I'd say that most had serious doubts though- hard to remember what percentage. I do know that many of those who yelled the loudest that he did have since slunk off, hiding in other forums or are trying to pretend they never said that but lol for long memories & the book-mark feature.

[sangh0]

98. My memory is similar to yours

Some did "Know" while others did not.

Now everyone seems to have known

[SaddenedDem]

2. Some of us WERE in that place on that day

We were in campaign offices for those who voted for that unconstitutional resolution.

We were on the streets demonstrating against it.

We were on the phones screaming against it.

We were faxing our feelings about it.

We were begging our representatives to reject it.

We WERE there that day. And we saw the truth of it. We saw candidate after candidate choose their political "career" over the hopes, desires and fears of the constituents they were elected to represent. We watched them agree with Bush that we were nothing more than a "focus group."

Today, I have the same message for those candidates which they sent us that day:

Sit down and shut up.

edit: spelling

[thedudeingeorgia]

13. Why are veterans supporting Kerry more than Clark?

At lunch today, I read an interesting op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about Kerry.

It seems that Kerry was involved in some anti-war organizations after he returned from Vietnam; organizations funded by Hanoi Jane and her supporters. He even went so far as to write a book about his war experience. On the cover, it shows several American soldiers with 'intentionally' wrong uniforms trying to hoist up an upside-side down American flag, similar to the Iwo Jima memorial.

I would think that all veterans, not just those from the Vietnam War, would be up in arms about this.

When it comes to war experience, Kerry has no problem showing his good side, but I think Americans need to know his bad side from the war as well.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. You think it is bad to have protested the Vietnam War?

[iowapeacechief]

57. Was this intended for a different thread?

Misplaced reply? Doesn't fit here.

[girl gone mad]

66. Good luck with that message..

on DU.

While Kerry will be torn apart on this issue in the GE, it won't hurt him in the primaries.

That may be one of the last true acts of courage on Kerry's part. Of course, a lot of people think he did it simply to win an election.

[edzontar]

204. As someone who was old enough to march against the Vietnam war

Let me say that Kerry's stand against it was the RIGHT thing to do.

I don't know why someone who likes to slander anti-war protestors and brandish the "Hanoi Jane" label would want to come to a DEMOCRATIC underground site....did you take a wrong turn somewhere on your way to some "other" place?

[deutsey]

15. Hear hear

:thumbsup:

[youngred]

23. Sorry, but I was there too

and that wasn't the message I got. perhaps you're misreading their intentions. The congresspersons that I talked to expressed sorrow at having to vote on this, and wishing that they could avoid it...but they couldn't.

[SaddenedDem]

28. So Zell Miller's....

"Hey, Mr. Bush, my stupid constituents don't want war but I'm saluting and saying 'Yes, sir!'" wasn't sit down and shut up to every single Georgian. Is that what you are alleging?

[youngred]

33. I'm not talking about Zell Miller

and indeed in the original piece pointed to him as a DINO traitor. Nice try to spin my position though.

I said the one's that I talked to, I did not get to talk to all 535 congressperson's though so I don't know.

[redqueen]

56. They couldn't?

What the hell? They couldn't?

Did they make this claim to you?

Because it makes absolutely no sense at all.

They are complicit -- they helped bush to get his illegal war on.

THANKS A LOT, COWARDS!

[youngred]

61. avoid the vote

the vote was going to come up anyway, sorry for being unclear

[redqueen]

72. No one asked them to avoid the vote altogether

We TOLD them to VOTE NO.

:mad:

[youngred]

81. way to miss the point

The point is they HAD to vote, and no matter what they did they were going to lose.

[redqueen]

101. No, the point is

that despite the blatantly obvious fact that they had to vote (um, duh!), they had no reason to vote with bush.

NONE!

And it is not true that 'no matter what they did they ...' blah blah blah.

Because the truth is that all those millions of people who implored them to fight the rush to war, would have been VERY happy indeed.

THOSE people would not view their honest representation as a 'loss', no matter what bush got away with.

Becuase if they had, then we wouldn't be worrying now about challenging bush on the war. It would be a no-brainer.

But because they whored out, it's now a liability for 'our side'.

[youngred]

112. and we advance to the nonsensicle

you're putting words in my mouth, not citing facts, letting your anger control your replies.

I'm not going to continue with you on this, because I remember those times clearly, moreso than some.

Peace, DK in the primaries because he Was one of the few who knew the truth and I applaud him for that, and ABB in november

[girl gone mad]

70. You are mistaken.

The people were not overwhelmingly pro-war. The Dems could have easily developed a spine and taken their case to the people. Most people would have at the very least supported more time for inspections, as Gen. Clark was recommending.

The Democrats caved without a fight when we were begging them to fight.

It is that simple. Kerry does not deserve the nomination.

[youngred]

76. I didn't say overwhelmingly

I said largely, and they were.

It is NOT that simple. I wish you would get out of your litany of assumption and anger and look at it a bit more objectively.

From the left its easy to criticize their moderation, but the fact is they would have lost the vote anyway. The people would not have listened...they would have listened to the dems be painted in the last few weeks before the election as traitors (Do you remember Max Cleland?). The Democrats couldn't and still aren't able to get their message out at ALL in the media.

I'm not saying give him the nomination, but don't hate so strongly for something that was a very hard choice...I doubt you've made every single decision correctly in your life.

[girl gone mad]

108. It wasn't a hard choice.

He voted against Gulf War I, remember? And back then, Saddam did have WMDs.

The Dems lost big despite, and many of us think because of, their pandering to the RW.

Quit blaming the media for the failure of our elected officials. There were people in the media speaking out against the rush to war, there were massive worldwide protests, polls showed more than half of Americans wanted Bush to hold off, and yet the Dems gave him the authority anyhow.

[youngred]

120. who is the "he" you're referring to

I've already adressed the concerns of the november election, but the point is ONE CAN ONLY SEE THAT IN HINDSIGHT.

I'm not blaming the media, but I am saying that they sandbagged a confused, afraid and undisciplined democratic party. Show me the poll where more than hald wanted bush to hold off. You won't find it. There was VIRTUALLY NO ONE in the mainstream media speaking against Bush's war. There were worldwide protests, yes, but they got about 5 seconds coverage on the nightly news. There was almost NO coverage of domestic protests either.

[girl gone mad]

59. Exactly!

And why should these pols now be rewarded for ignoring their constituents?

[youngred]

85. well ignoring thie constituents would have gotten them voted out

which is why they voted in favour. We as a nation were not their constituents then. We as a nation have also changed our opinion to some degree on the war from 2002.

[redqueen]

118. Whose constituents?

Whose constituents indicated that they preferred that their representative vote YES?

[sangh0]

148. All of them

The polls showed that most Americans, *AND* most Dems, supported an invasion of Iraq. Remember, those same polls showed that most Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11

Now I'll wait for you to argue that the polls were wrong because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11

[redqueen]

150. Wrong

The polls are not constituents. I specifically asked about constituents. The overwhelming indication was that 9 out of 10 calls / letters were AGAINST the IWR.

And as for the polls (ugh), they were seriously hyped. As I said in another post, it's one thing for an average person to be fooled by such twisting of words and numbers -- that's understandable. It is NOT acceptable that a legislator was fooled, and I don't believe they were at all. They knew full well that what they were doing was aginst the public sentiment, and yet they did not care.

The polls indicated support WITH time for more inspections and a coalition. The polls incidated LACK OF support without more time for inspections and a coalition.

[sangh0]

153. "The polls are not constituents."????

Umm, the people who were counted by the pollsters are constituents.

Believe it or not, those phone calls and letters are not constituents.

And as for the polls (ugh), they were seriously hyped

So what? Hyped or not, it's how people felt at the time.

The polls indicated support WITH time for more inspections and a coalition. The polls incidated LACK OF support without more time for inspections and a coalition.

And IWR called for more time and a coalition.

[redqueen]

158. LOL

Unless a poll was taken for a specific district, then you cannot meaningfully correlate the support in any particular legislator's district with the results of those polls. Clearer?

And sorry, but a hyped poll is not 'how people feel', it's how people feel under *very particular circumstances* and under the circumstances at the time the support was NOT there.

Regarding the stupid vote for the IWR because they 'trusted bush' to allow more time for inspectors and gather a coalition... I know that many other people weren't fooled, so I still can't excuse their carelessness.

[sangh0]

160. Then how do you know anyone's constituents were against IWR?

Unless a poll was taken for a specific district, then you cannot meaningfully correlate the support in any particular legislator's district with the results of those polls. Clearer?

How can you know which legislator did not represent their constituents if you haven't done any polls in any specific districts?

And sorry, but a hyped poll is not 'how people feel', it's how people feel under *very particular circumstances* and under the circumstances at the time the support was NOT there.

So a poll is "how people feel under *very particular circumstances*" but the answers people gave to the poll are NOT "how people feel under (those) *very particular circumstances*"

Now that's clear!

[redqueen]

162. Because they said so

More than a few legislators openly admitted that constituent sentiment was overwhelmingly against them voting for the IWR. IIRC, some even offered appeals to their constituents as they cast their traitorous votes. :puke:

What's clear is that Repukes aren't the only ones who like to spin poll results. :)

[sangh0]

168. You asked all of the constituents??

I don't believe you.

More than a few legislators openly admitted that constituent sentiment was overwhelmingly against them voting for the IWR

Not true. They said most of their mail and phone calls were running against IWR, but letters and phone calls are not a poll.

[redqueen]

176. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough

The legislators themselves said that their constituents did not want them to vote for the IWR.

And no, direct contact from constituents is not a poll. But I wonder if I'm mistaken in thinking that most people would probably agree that it's far more accurate a sampling to vase your vote on than some slanted, small-sample-group poll. :)

[sangh0]

185. You were clear. You were also wrong

The legislators themselves ID NOT say that their constituents did not want them to vote for the IWR. They said the letters and phone calls they received were against IWR.

But I wonder if I'm mistaken in thinking that most people would probably agree that it's far more accurate a sampling to vase your vote on than some slanted, small-sample-group poll. :)

You are mistaken

[redqueen]

189. You don't think they were differentiating?

I'm certain they knew how many of their constituents were calling in support of or against their voting for the IWR. heh

And thanks, but I don't think I'll be taking your assertion re: polls vs. directly-related constituent sentiments as fact. :)

[sangh0]

193. The only differentiation needed

is to distinguish between what those legislators actually said, and what you say they said

[Uzybone]

3. They should be for DK or Sharpton

if they are not then they are hypocrites.

[girl gone mad]

74. No.

Clark also testified against immediate action in Iraq.

[mmonk]

4. I look most at world view

that's why I have reservations on two particular candidates that have gained in popularity lately. How long do you run on the "it was necessary to protect our country" theme? It's a trust issue.

[youngred]

25. but are they still making that claim?

no, those two candidates have promised to bring troops back and get more international support

[mmonk]

31. I believe

they say it was necessary. Correct me if I'm wrong but they keep defending their votes.

[youngred]

40. one says its necessary

both want to bring US troops back though

[mmonk]

64. Which one says it wasn't necessary?

Provide any links.

[youngred]

71. Kerry I believe

he said it at a recent speech that I heard at least. No link though, sorry

[dsc]

5. 23 Democrats

including the up for reelction Wellstone voted against the IWR. Kerry had no Republican opponent. His only opponent was against the war. He had nothing, except his upward political ambitions to lose.

[ibegurpard]

9. I'm afraid you're right

Kerry's Iraq War Resolution vote is NOT the only reason I do not like the man, however. It's just one of the bigger ones.

[youngred]

29. Wellstone is different

and had he voted for it, it would have been suicide for him.

As for Kerry, he may not have been up for reelection in 2002 but reelection comes to every politician in due time and that vote would be one that could easily come back to haunt me.

Thanks for not even considering the position they were in and persisting with anger and revenge over sense and understanding

[dsc]

35. He was up for reelction

he just didn't have a Republican opponent. That would have given him 6 years before being up for reelection again.

[youngred]

43. ok....

I don't know, there is more at issue than re-election in my argument though. care to adress taht?

[SaddenedDem]

51. Wellstone DID have an opponent

One who was backed by the White House, no less.

Of course, the people who want us to, once again, hold our nose and vote for the lesser of 2 evils don't want to admit this.

I'm sorry, there is no way in hell I will ever cast a vote for any Democrat who vote FOR the IWR. EVER.

DU knew there were no WMD in Iraq. We had the good sense to listen to Scott Ritter, Dennis Kucinich and Will Pitt.

Some of the REAL Democrats did too. As for Kerry and Edwards and the other "candidates" who didn't bother don't deserve my attention today.

Once again, I deliver their message back to them - sit down and shut up.

[girl gone mad]

77. You said it. n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. You are just plain wrong

about Kerry's motives.

For now, keep sending money into the blackhole of the Dean campaign, so it can end up in some consultant's pocket, and then in November, vote your conscience.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

151. Oh, really? And, what were his motives?

Is it the "bush lied to me" rationale.

Or,

The "I wanted to involve the UN by forestalling bush" excuse?

Or,

The "Getting rid of Saddam had to be done to protect us from proliferation" lie?

I will be voting my conscience in November whether it be Dean, Clark or Green.

What will you be doing?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

172. If you want to know, open your heart, and your mind

Excerpt from Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq, October 09, 2002

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.

American success in the Persian Gulf War was enhanced by the creation of a multinational coalition. Our coalition partners -- I'd add -- picked up the overwhelming burden of the costs of that war. It is imperative that the Administration continue to work to multilateralize its current effort against Iraq. If the Administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense inspection regime, or if necessary through the use of force. The United States without question has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally, but we need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, and overflight rights from allies in the region. That support will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power to stop the United States from doing what it must to protect its citizens, but it is in our interests to act with our allies if that is at all possible - and it should be: the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands is not ours alone.

If we do go to war with Iraq, we have an obligation to the Iraqi people, and to other nations in the region, to help create an Iraq that is a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long-term, costly and not without difficulties given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the Administration has given more lip-service than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot let that happen in Iraq. We have to be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes and to commit the necessary financial and technical resources, which could amount to billions, to succeed. The challenge is great: an Administration which made nation-building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan if it intends to meet it. The President needs to give the American people a fuller and clearer understanding of the magnitude and the long-term financial costs of this effort. The international community's support is critical, because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. In the final analysis we will need the commitment of others, particularly nations in the region, to achieve this task.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

184. 'If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out."

Not that that statement exactly made bush tremble with fear. But, just when did he "speak out"?

It sounds like the "I was just too stupid to know that bush was going to war no matter what" defense. Or, the more likely, "Gosh, I can have it both ways by saying anti-war slogans and still vote for the war" cynicism that actually took place.

It was a cold, heartless, and cowardly vote base on the polls of the time.

My "heart and mind" are open. My heart goes out to the 20,000 plus dead, and my mind is operating well enough to see and recognize pure self justifying BS when I see it.

[sangh0]

186. Kerry spoke out

as soon as he recovered from surgery for cancer.

[redqueen]

188. Same here

It pains me to see our party so ready to dismiss such an important and hurtful vote.

[dreissig]

155. Kerry Had No Excuse

Kerry didn't have the excuse that Jean Carnahan had. Carnahan was running in a tight re-election race against a war hawk. She ended up losing both her self-respect and the election.

Kerry was concerned with his chances in the '04 election. It's pretty cowardly when you think about it. He didn't want to lose votes by showing any backbone.

He lost my vote because he didn't.

[redqueen]

6. Screw that.

"The November mid-term elections were less than a month away and the public greatly favoured the war."

NOT TRUE. The statistics were spun silly just like they are here, but that doesn't change reality.

I do not forgive them, neither do I give them any 'understanding' at all.

I would have voted against it. No question.

I don't even know how you managed to type that, knowing that Sen. Byrd (far left, is he?) was standing firm, and watching in horror as his 'Democratic' colleagues bent over for the MIC.

Screw that.

I MIGHT be able to forgive that sycophantic act which helped to legitimize bush's war, IF they admitted their mistake and asked. Somehow, I just don't see that happening.

[youngred]

49. screw us then

alright, greatly is an exaggeration, it was still running between 65 and 70% support and taht number stayed consistant throughout the march to war.

[redqueen]

65. More bull$#*@ SPIN

Why are you using those FOX NEWS Numbers?!

What the hell is going on here?!!!!

I am ABB, youngred, but DAMNIT. You cannot expect me to vote for these COWARDLY IDIOTS happily.

Their cowardice LOST seats in the midterms, and despite my ABBness, might very well end up costing us the election.

You can quote BS stats on support and rant all day long about how they had 'no choice', but it won't cut muster with real patriots. NO SIR.

Yes, I'm ABB. Am I happy about it? No. Am I happy to have to go over that horrible day once again? HELL FREAKING NO!

That day my closet-Republican husband was SO freaking happy. He SO enjoyed flaunting our "Democrat" leadership's betrayal in my face.

THANKS, COWARDS!!!!

[youngred]

94. No one said you had to do it happily

Just that we do it, and those who are so willing to cut of our nation's nose for the surity of their convictions are who this was aimed at. not you.

I'm not using Fox news numbers, nearly all polls at the time pointed to a similar consensus, true or not.

Yes, their cowardice lost us seats, but at the time no one knew that and it was assumed by nearly everyone that standing up would ensure electoral disaster (Cleland for example).

So now I'm not a real patriot because I can understand a mistake made in a hard position?

[redqueen]

132. Stop rubbing our noses in the mess these cowards left

Aim this nonsense somewhere else. You're not going to win over anyone by trying to whitewash this kind of betrayal.

It is a lie that all polls pointed to a similar consensus. I expect the average American might be gullible enough to be impressed with sunny poll numbers - but I expect more from leaders. They are supposed to read between the lines, and you expect me to believe they didn't. I think they did.

And I did not say that you are not a real patriot because you can 'understand' a mistake made in a 'hard position'. I say that real patriots everywhere saw right through the bush lies, and our leaders should have known better than to kiss bush's ass on this one.

[youngred]

164. It is not a lie

and "our" leaders have not lead us for a long time. I completely disagree with them, but I can understand why they did it. Sorry you can't, go in peace.

[Ninga]

8. Having political courage can

be a losing proposition. I would rather lose an election than have the blood of our military and Iraq people on my hands.

So much for "doing the right thing,"

If doing the right thing was easy, then everybody would do it.

But because doing the right thing can cost personally, or in popularity, we many times avoid it.

Tell me why that when doing the right thing requires putting aside all political comfort in order to avoid the death and distruction of war.......how hard can it be?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. It seems to have backfired for Kerry.

He voted his conscience, knowing it would anger his constituents, and the liberal base of the party.

Will they forgive him?

[CWebster]

14. The public NEVER favored the war

They had to beat the drums for months(the equivilant of pounding Dean for a week)and lie and lie and scare monger and threaten the population before they could herd them into any kind of consensus--and even then it was with reservations to allow the Inspectors to continue and seek mulilateral support. There is no excusing a vote of support for Bush--in the face of a terrible lie it is a breech of national security. It is a vote of confidence to a moron with an agenda to continue to prolong the bounce of 911 indefinitely.

Kerry was given the opportunity to sign on with Byrd and Kennedy who tried to draft a revised resolution and Kerry declined. The Democrats who refused to bow were not rousted in the 2002 elections but many of those who supported Bush were, After all when given the choice between a Repug and a Dem who supports the Repug, they will choose the Repug everytime.


I have to wonder why you would support Kucinich since you seem to overlook his position on the event.

[redqueen]

178. "The public NEVER favored the war"

CWebster, I'm starting to wonder if we're in the minority in recognizing this.

I would expect that we would be if we weren't on DU.

God help us all.

[kaitykaity]

17. I want someone with the courage of his convictions,

not an eye to 'finger in the wind' political
popularity. A leader must be able to make the
unpopular choice, and then face the consequences.

I have as much empathy as the next person, but
my own anger at the pink tutu Democrats hasn't
gone anywhere. Sorry.

[youngred]

55. This IS NOT Finger in the wind political analysis

this is about more than elections. This is about them not being able to stop it at all, even if they wanted. This is about the threat of possible death for them in rality.

What good would it have done to give Bush a 60+ majority in the senate? we'd have pickering, ANWR drilling and numerous other programmes which the dems have been able to stop since they have been able to filibuster.

A leader must be able to face unpopular consequences, but how many of you all would have rushed to attack them for losing badly in the elections and being completely unable to stop Bush.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

87. I think you're backing the wrong candidate.

They could have stopped it. They could have slowed it. They could have done ANYTHING but play into bush's and the MIC's hands.

Death for them? Are their lives worth more than the seven soldiers that were killed just today? Are they so important that we should just forget about all these people who are paying for the mistake they made?

And you seem to be insinuating that voting against the IWR would have cost us more seats in the midterms.

Maybe I'm nuts, but it seems that I, and many, many other people, have come to the completely opposite conclusion. We should have GAINED seats. Maybe if these gutless wonders had the courage of their convictions, we woulnd't have lost so many seats.

[youngred]

165. I have been backing the right candidate

the war is an issue I agree with Dennis on, just like nearly every other issue.

Stop tying to paint me as a pro-war monster please, I am not. These people's lives matter greatly to me and for that reason I support Dennis' plan to get our troops out of harms way.

I'm not saying forget, I am saying consider that its not all black-and white, with us or against us stuff, there are shades of gray in governming. Call me a pragmatist, call me whatever you will, but in favour of the war I never was and never will be

[redqueen]

183. I'm not trying to paint you as pro-war

But in your excuse-making you have gone IMO beyond the pale.

You said that they could not stop them, so why not side with bush? To me, that is outrageous.

You implied that they might be killed. This infers that their lives are more valuable than the soldiers'. I find that so wrong.

Then you implied that they would have lost more seats on the hill if they hadn't capitulated to bush. I disagree. (And you said in another post that you thought otherwise so... ?)

Then you accuse anyone who won't just say 'it's OK' of being unable to stand up for their own convictions in a similar circumstance. ?!

Sorry, youngred, but these legislators are not put there for their own benefit. They are there to represent US. And when they openly admit that they know their constituents don't want them to vote with bush, and they do so anyway, that's a betrayal. There's really no other way to put it.

[youngred]

202. You are completely misunderstand what I'm saying

They were completely unable to stop him no matter what they did, but that doesn't mean they should side with Bush.

Where on earth did I say their lives are more valuable than a soldiers, that is not at all what I said.

About losing seats, in HINDSIGHT it is easy to see that they lost seats for that (among other things), but at the time EVERY indicator said that opposing the IWR would lose them significant seats.

I have no idea at all what you mean by this
Then you accuse anyone who won't just say 'it's OK' of being unable to stand up for their own convictions in a similar circumstance. ?!

And your concluding paragraph is rife with inaccuracies

I am not saying anything bad here, but you persist, wilfully or un, to twist what I'm saying into something its not.

[kaitykaity]

91. You're assuming too much I think.

If I remember correctly, there weren't enough Dem
senators up for reelection in 2002 to hand Bush
a supermajority. If there were, you need to put up
the nine you think would have lost on a 'no' vote.
Because as Dean proved, Democrats like me were just
hungering for someone to stand up and speak for us.

I wasn't saying your post was FITW 'analysis'. I'm
saying that placing a morality vote based on political
popularity is FITW cowardice, and I will not support
or reward it.

[jpgray]

19. Very even-handed analysis (nt)

[evil_orange_cat]

20. I used to have that IWR litmus test about Kerry and co.

I just changed my mind... we must get rid of Bushy...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. My feelings at the time

I watched the vote, and I applauded every Dem who voted against it, but...

In the back of my mind, there was the suspicion that if all the Dems had voted against the IWR, then the Busheviks would have made absolutely certain that WMD were "found" in Iraq, even if they had to plant them themselves. Then the cry would have been, "See, we found this warehouse full of nerve gas, and those Democrats would have waited until he used it on us or on Israel."

I heard something from another MN DUer who was at a Wellstone fundraiser just after the IWR vote (it was either dfl princess or myrna minx). She talked to Sheila Wellstone, who said that the Senators were being told that all those pleas from anti-war activists didn't represent the majority of the American people and that voting against the war would end one's career. Sheila said that Paul had decided to vote "no," career or no career, and was actually worried about how he would be received back in Minnesota. In fact, he went up 6 points in the polls and received thunderous welcomes everywhere he went in those last few weeks of his life.

Consider that Paul Wellstone voted against the IWR half-convinced that he might lose the election because of it.

I am still sad about the IWR vote, but two kinds of fear were at work here, fear of being proven a fool and fear of losing one's career. In the rare and somewhat insulated world of the Beltway, only the exceptional Congresspersons voted against the IWR, and exceptional people are, by definition, rare.

[CWebster]

38. Which leads to the question

Why should we reward those who took the low road?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Why do you think I'm supporting Kucinich?

But I'm not a one-issue voter, either.

[redqueen]

53. out of fear of losing to bush

see? with fear based thinking, the MIC WINS WINS WINS!

God am I ever disgusted by humanity today.

Seeing people on this board spout the exact same rationale as the bush warmongers is just about too much for me.

[CWebster]

63. High five you there. nt

[girl gone mad]

92. Stick around..

some of us don't play "follow the leader"

I will do my best to keep Kerry from getting the nomination. I've sent money to Dean and Clark today, and I'll go to work for one of them tomorrow.

[IrateCitizen]

114. I don't express "disgust" for soft-mindedness

I'm reading MLK's classic work, "Strength to Love" right now. In it, he speaks of the need to engage in the Christian concept of "loving one's enemies". In the course of this point, he devotes a lot of time to the idea of having a "hard mind and tender heart."

What you are expressing "disgust" with is the many tender MINDS that abound around us. By that, I mean those who are willing to allow their fear to dictate how they act, resulting in actions such as the support for waging war on others. There are also those who have hard hearts, who have no problem with endorsing wholesale slaughter for their own benefit.

But, on this point, King is quite clear: we MUST NOT engage in the embrace of negativity when confronted with softmindedness or hardheartedness. We must learn to (forgive me for invoking a completely Christian story here) act as Christ did on the cross when he said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." It is situations like this that highlight this truth. We must seek to transform these people through our words and deeds -- not to degrade them with our disgust for things they do which they know no better.

[redqueen]

135. Thanks for sapping some of my anger

But honestly IC, I just cannot bear it. Seven more soldiers died today. Seven more mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters, will mourn, and our leaders HELPED THEM.

It is not with the soft-minds of the electorate I have a problem. It is with the cowardice of the democratic candidates who I may have to vote for.

It sickens and saddens me at the same time.

I cannot ask my Father to forgive THEM, because they knew FULL WELL what they were doing.

As such, it is his call whether to forgive them or not. I know I cannot, at least until they admit they were wrong and apologize.

[youngred]

167. but they didn't know FULL WELL

that's the point

[redqueen]

190. That's your opinion

And it's one I don't share.

[youngred]

67. Thank you

it came as a surprise to everyone that people (in general) disliked the idea of the war and were angry at the dems for not opposing it. But say they had, can you imagine the outcry from the right?

If Paul Wellstone, the conscience of the senate, had to stop and consider a no career vote that means that it was not the simple decision many here make it out to be

[CWebster]

73. Everytime you excuse them

you disrespect those who demonstrated resolve and truly TRULY demonstrated superior decision making priorities in the national security effort.

[youngred]

122. right

ok

[redqueen]

137. Thank you

Excusing people for bad behavior gets you more of the same.

Let's stop trying to pretend that it isn't as bad as it was, because it was.

Are we as Americans EVER going to expect more from our leaders? Or should we just start watching more TV and stop pretending to care?

[bigtree]

62. I take the position that the War Powers Act gave Bush the authority

that he needed to commit forces without congressional approval for 60 days. After the troops are in the field Congress would be loath to retreat and remove them.

The imput by Congress before the commitment of forces is restricted to a resolution where hopefully conditions on the use of that force are mandated. That's what the IWR represented to some Democrats in the Senate: A chance to reign the president in by mandating an exhaustion of options in the U.N. Indeed, language to that effect was inserted into the final IWR. Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the bill and pushed foward with a predisposed, unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation.

A 'no' vote wouldn't have better restrained him, nor is there a guarantee that a 'no' vote would have steered him back to the U.N. Bush's position was that 1441 gave him all of the authority to do whatever he wanted. Congress did not provide cover for what Bush did. Bush pushed past the Congress, the American people, and the international community in his rush to war.

Foisting the blame on Congress allows Bush cover he doesn't deserve.

[Eloriel]

100. Betray the PEACE Movement?

Honey, that was no PEACE Movement, that was millions of regular people from all over the world, including SOME from the PEACE Movement, trying to get their governments' attention. People in other parts of the world were more successful than we here in the U.S.

You are all empathetic liberals, put yourself EXACTLY in that time and place and tell me how many of you would have voted against the IWR.

No question, no doubt, no contest. The UN was telling us no -- it was their Resolution to support or not (does anyone remember or care?). None of the other countries in the world thought Iraq was any kind of a threat, including Iraq's neighbors. Those three things alone should've been a huge, HUGE red flag. After all, the U.S. isn't the only one with intelligence operations.

Add to that the fact that basically all the claims had been thoroughly debunked.

I am NOT going to reward someone who voted to send young men and women (and lots of not-so-young men and women) to get killed and maimed and psychologically scarred for life, to cause the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis AND their military, to sanction waging a unilateral war of aggression, to defy international law, to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY hand their responsibility to declare war to a powermad would-be dictator -- ALL to further their political careers.

These are not people I want in the Senate or House or anywhere in government, let alone at the head of this country.

For those who are so damned afraid of our non-vote, here's what you need to do: STOP NAGGING US and get your asses over to the pro-Iraq-war candidate of your choice and get THEM to renounce their Iraq vote and apologize. And it better goddamned well be profoundly sincere.

Better yet, get behind Dean.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. Great post. Thanks.

Those afraid of us would like nothing better than to silence us with their endless loyalty oaths and pathetic excuses for their candidates.

[youngred]

124. Why behind Dean?

He was in favour of the war for a long time, until he thought he could make some political hay out of it. Then he became the Antiwarrior.

[redqueen]

140. Excellent post

Except the last part. ;) Kidding!

Renunciation of the votes and apologies would do well to help us fight bush in the GE.

Failure to do that and it's back to 'us too, just not as much'. Real winning strategy there!

[Iverson]

104. Absolutely yes, I would have voted against.

"You are all empathetic liberals, put yourself EXACTLY in that time and place and tell me how many of you would have voted against the IWR."

It is exactly because I have some empathy that I could not be so cavalier about a life and death decision on behalf of an administration in which I have zero confidence.

It is because I have some critical faculties, as opposed to empathy, that I would demand evidence that is damned persuasive before I give in to politically motivated fear for a life and death matter.

I prefer to think of it not as a "litmus test," which is rather dismissive, but as a basic, basic principle not to wage war lightly, nor smile and nod at it for political expediency.

[youngred]

127. FWIW

I agree with you personally, but I cannot stand the attacks on some of our candidates (when many of those people's professed candidates were saying and doing the same things, but didn't face a vote) for something that many people here would not have had to had the courage to decide upon if they too were in that position.

Some of them did have confidence in Bush, did trust him, for whatever reason. They were misled along with the country and I cannot necessarily blame them for not knowing as much as I and others did in 2002

[Iverson]

130. That's a valid point to raise.

I share your distaste over the whiff of hypocrisy. However, I consider it a separate issue from the one presented.

Too often this point of basic principle (or policy) is raised in the context of some individual's campaign. That is tragically short-sighted to me, but I'm one of those irrational extremists that you read about.

[redqueen]

142. Irrational extremist?

Liar! ;)

Seriously, though... does it really take some rare or exceptional person to consider that innocent lives would be lost in this war?

Anyone who values human life couldn't possibly take this lightly.

[sangh0]

145. "Values human life" or "Values some human lives"

What about the poor people who die from a lack of health care? Why are the innocent Iraqis who died in this invasion a more important issue than the dead American children?

[redqueen]

147. Can't be separated

You present a false dichotomy.

Nowhere were the cowardly, spineless non-leaders asked to choose between waging an illegal war against Iraq, or providing healthcare to children.

They could easily have been protective of all those lives, but some chose not to be.

[sangh0]

154. No, you present the false dichotomy

that war, and the resulting deaths, are a more important issue than the lack of health care, and it's resulting deaths. The same goes for a lack of drug treatment programs. People die from that too.

Dean could have easily protected the lives of those drug abusers, but he chose not to and cut the programs instead.

But he cares about innocent Iraqis, so it's OK, right?

[Iverson]

157. incorrect

You have inserted the comparison to health care and then restated the other discussant's position as if it incorporated the variable that you introduced. That has resulted in an inaccurate restatement of the position.

[sangh0]

161. incorrect

The "variable" is people dying, and Dean has made decisions that led to people dying. But for some reason, some people think dying isn't important if the death is not war-related.

I never said IWR was the most important issue because people dies as a result. I merely pointed out that IWR is not the only life and death issue out there

[Iverson]

201. incorrect again

In the post to which you responded, the variable was not "people dying." The entire sentence - complete thought resurrected for context - was this:

"Anyone who values human life couldn't possibly take this lightly."

The term "this" referred clearly to IWR until you introduced other matters, exactly as I described. Then you reframed the earlier claim, exactly as I described. This is the brand new discursive comparison that you introduced:

"Why are the innocent Iraqis who died in this invasion a more important issue than the dead American children?"

Notice that by asking "why" you get to presume that the other writer took a position that they in fact did not. Again, this is exactly as I described.

It avails little to deny a new line of argument where one clearly existed.

[redqueen]

159. This is not about Dean, sangh0

This war and the resulting deaths, while not more important than whatever you're talking about, are almost certainly more numerous.

(BTW: Did Dean's actions cause people to die? how many? tends of thousands? then it doesn't add up.)

I'm not discussing Dean, I don't care for him for other reasons than his talking up the WMD claims, just like all the other spineless canddiates did, helping bush to get his war on.

[sangh0]

163. It's about life and death issues

and health care, drug treatment programs, capital punishment, and whole load of issues fit the bill. Unfortunately, you have focused on war to the exclusion of the others, and are now spreading more misinformation. (ie "are almost certainly more numerous")

More people die from a lack of health care than the Iraqi invasion

[redqueen]

192. Yes, it is

Yes, a whole load of issues fit the bill. And if the candidiate voted against the public interest, against human life, on any of them, I'd be dissappointed.

My claim about the amount of deaths was meant to counter your direct charge towards Howard Dean. You named him, and claimed that bills he influenced were responsibile for deaths.

Considering that you had framed your comments in that manner, I appropriately compared the deaths facilitated by a pro-war vote and echo-chamber service to bush's WMD lies and hype to the number of deaths Dean could possibly be linked to.

Now you seem to want to leave out the specificity of your argument (you're no longer talking about Vermont).

[sangh0]

194. Be prepared for a lot of disappointment

because each of the candidates have, at times, cast votes that cost people's lives.

Considering that you had framed your comments in that manner, I appropriately compared the deaths facilitated by a pro-war vote and echo-chamber service to bush's WMD lies and hype to the number of deaths Dean could possibly be linked to.

OK, let's talk Dean. When the Repukes wanted to cut social spending by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, Dean agreed with them. Dean supported a policy which was against the public interest and against human life.

And then there's his position on Medicare, which has saved thousands and thousands of lives. I personally know at least 20 people whose lives have been saved by Medicare, and all Dean can do is join the Repukes in criticizing Medicare, and on the fallacious grounds that Medicare is misadministrated (Medicare pay 2% towards overhead, private providers pay 15%)

[redqueen]

198. LOL - this is silly

Regardless of whether votes ended up costing people's lives, only a very few did so with the knowledge beforehand that they were doing so.

"OK, let's talk Dean."

LOLOL! I love it... this frames the discussion as if I'm the one who keeps wanting to make this about Dean.

Someone keeps wanting to make this about Dean, but it's ain't me, babe!

:silly:

[youngred]

166. you're right, no one should take it lightly

and I don't think that anyone there did.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. 23 senators voted against the war.

Including one of mine. She is running for re-election this year and I expect her to win with ease. Your thesis that a vote against the war would have been political "suicide" is wrong.

I will not vote for the jello-spined candidates who cowed before the polls and supported bush.

[youngred]

131. 2004, a year after the war

with no WMDs still, no help, still danger etc is different than October 2002.

Time's change

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. What's your point?

That the 23 senators who courageously voted against the war were calculating that it would become unpopular in a year? It took about 15 years for the war in Vietnam to become "unpopular" and even then Nixon won.

They sold us out. They sold out America. Their vote enabled the destruction of over 20,000 people. People, not numbers, or "collateral damage" or, "unfortunate incidents". Men, women, children, Iraqis, Americans, Poles, Brits, for what?

You yourself admit that the cowardly senators who voted for it, did so in a craven surrender to the polls to advance their political careers.

If you can stomach the stench of the dead, vote for Edwards or Kerry.

I can't and I won't.

[youngred]

171. No, they came to a different conclusion than you and I

based on false information and the spectere of a very dangerous Bush landslide. You say it yourself that it took 15 years for vietnam to become unpopular, and even then Nixon won, well they were expecting Iraq to be a popular war

No, I do not admit that it was a "craven surrender to the polls to advance their political careers". That is the case for some of them and ONE of the reasons they went for it, not the ONLY one.

You can't and you won't, but you will vote Howard Dean who only began to oppose the war when he realized there was a constiuency for it. As long as we're playing games of absolutes then you can't vote anyone but Sharpton and Kucinich...or does only the hypocricy of opponenets (if one can call it that) count?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

196. You're right about Dean.

But, you fail to recognize that the anti-war movement is not a product of Dean's. But, the reverse. Dean has assumed a stridently anti-war posture because of the anti-war movement. Kerry and Edwards still try to maintain that their votes for the war were justified for a number of "reasons". Politicians are the product of the people and their demands. Dean is responding to the demands of the anti-war feeling of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Kerry, Edwards are responding to the demands of that segment of the population that are in favor of the war.

What was their other "reasons" for voting for the slaughter of thousands? And, while you're at it, were the "other" reasons good enough to justify it?

I think not and will vote in accordance with that belief.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[bigtree]

128. So

you care more about the lives of the servicemen more than I do because I support John Kerry and you don't. Arguments made by me are in no way connected to the Kerry campaign. I can think for myself. I have a right to my view. I would not expect to be blamed for deaths in Iraq since I protested this war from the start. I gave free t-shirts away in Washington with 'Support Our Returning Soldiers' on the front and a peace sign on the back. At another march I, unsolicited, I provided food and water. At yet another march I gave away rain ponchos. At another I marched in total silence.

You don't own the anti-war mantle. I believe John Kerry is anti-war. I believe that his IWR vote was intended to forestall war by directing Bush back to the U.N. Just because you disagree with that assessment doesn't give you the right to label those who disagree with you pro-war.

[youngred]

133. Sorry Allen

Politics isn't more important than human lives and I'm not an apologist.

I have no political gain to get from writing this other than to see Bush defeated in November.

So your point is what again?

[MadHound]

123. Sorry, but I can't buy your thesis

First of all, there were many, many polls out there showing the vast majority of people were against ANY unilateral action. These same polls also showed that the vast majority of people in the US wanted to give as much time as needed to finish the inspections, and then base our actions on what those inspections uncovered. There was no sentiment for a rush to war. In addition there were protests, both at home and worldwide, that boasted numbers unseen since the Vietnam war. Also in all of the communications going to our Senators and Congressman, the overwhelming majority of people were against the IWR. The opposition to war crossed every line, age, race, education, income. I don't know how many people who I thought surely must be for war came up to me and said that I was doing the right thing in protesting it. In fact so many of these suprise naysayers joined our local protests that on some days it looked like a redneck holiday in front of the post office. This scene was repeated over and over again across not just the nation, but the world.

Second, there was ample knowledge before the vote stating that Iraq had no WMD. UN reports, international aid reports, IAEA reports, CIA reports, State Dept reports all stating that there were no WMDs in Iraq. From Powells telling statements in early '01 to the '98 CIA report, from the IAEA to Hans Blix all across the board it was stated that there was nothing on which to base the claim of Irai WMDs.

And yet these quisling Dems went ahead and voted for the IWR anyway. And you expect us to give them a pass simply because ". . . votes against the IWR would have been political suicide." Let me ask you which is worse, political suicide or the real deaths of over five hundred of our soldiers and tens of thousand of innocent Iraqis? It is a cold blooded political calculus that puts one's own career ahead of the preventing the needless deaths of thousands upon thousands. What ever happened to having the courage of your convictions? Hell for that matter what ever happened to putting the wishes of your constituents first? I mean really, that is a politicians' job after all, to represent their constituents. And by every available measure those constituents did not want the US to go into a pre-emptive unilateral war. And yet these quisling Dems voted for one anyway. Hell, if they're not going to follow the wishes of their constituents(their JOB), then they don't need to be in such a position of power anyway.

So no, I won't be voting for any of the quisling Dems. They failed to do their job, and thus none of them deserve to be elected to our highest office. Lord, if they bent over for such an important matter as the IWR, then what guarantee do we have that they won't bend over on other matters? NONE!

[redqueen]

144. Well said

You present a powerful argument.

[bigtree]

149. Bill Clinton said today that no one could tell whether all WMDs had

been destroyed because inspectors weren't there to verify it. Makes sense. Said it on MSNBC

[redqueen]

152. And I trust the 'big dog' about as much as I do Powell.

Whether or not all the WMDs were destroyed is immaterial.

The fact is there was in no way shape or form enough WMD's to present a threat to the American people, and that's what they had to lie about (and some candidates helped them) in order to get their war on.

[bigtree]

182. the resolution was designed to get Saddam to let inspectors back in

by backing the 1441 U.N. resolution with the threat of force. Inspectors were let back in and pulled when Bush rushed forward. If Bush had given the inspectors more time perhaps they would have taken the question of WMDs off of the table. That was the effect of the resolution. Allowing the inspectors to reenter Iraq and proceed with verification. We could guess, but they would verify. Bush pushed ahead of Congress in his invasion. He cut the inspectors off with his rush to invade. No Democrat advocated that, save Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller.

Still some will insist on holding those who sought to reign him in responsible for the sins of Bush. It makes no sense, politically or otherwise to claim that Senators like John Kerry advocated or acquiesced to unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation in their support for the IWR.

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. Congress would be loath to remove forces after they are committed.

The only imput that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which would not restrain the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution. Sen. Kerry and other Democrats chose the latter. They didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.

edit:sp

[redqueen]

197. Everything you've said is factually correct

However the writing was on the wall before bush ever took office.

Many people understood that this vote did nothing more than lend credence to bush's illegal invasion. I don't believe that our legislators are so foolish to have believed that he would follow the rules on this, since has never done so before.

Kucinich and Byrd were intelligent enough to recognized bush's predisposed zeal, and deny him the legimization that others granted him. Now we are weaker as democrats in our case against bush.

Not only that, aside fromt the IWR vote, their assistance in echoing the hype and lies about WMD's were absolutely indefensible.

[youngred]

174. Fair enough

Could you please direct me to a poll that shows what you claim? I remember a lot of pro-war fervor, and a lot of indifference. I think many thought we moved in too fast, but support for the war, was high. I saw a very different picture of America in those days. I saw my house get egged and driveway spray painted with "go home commies", and "Osama luvr" because we had a dove and olive branch flag out front. I saw on my campus the ROTC proclaiming "Help F*ck Saddam in the ass, join ROTC" I remember being spit on and accosted for an opposition to a reinstatement of the draft. I remember a lot of things from those days which belie your assertion. Who's right and who's wrong, I don't know. We probably both are both.

The claim that there were NO Iraqi WMDs was almost never asserted. Nearly everyone (yes, even Blix himself) assumed that Saddam had some WMDs somewhere, but they argued for time to find if Saddam actually had them and was in breach of the UN resolution. So I disagree with your assertion. Further, even if there was proof, it most certainly was not common knowledge for the public or for many of the representatives in congress who were fed the intelligence briefings that Bush wanted them to have.

I don't expect you to give them a pass, what I do HOPE (I don't expect anyone to do anything, they will do what they will on their own), is that for a few seconds people might soften their hearts and consider that perhaps these men were just trying to do what they thought was best, not just on this issue, but on all the issues, and that perhaps its a helluva lot easier to be strongly pro or con anonymously on an internet message board than it is for a US Senator.

As for the rest I agree with you, and personally that is what I would have wished to happen, but the WHY of things matters, sometimes as much as the actual event itself.

What's to say they won't bend over on other matters? nothing other than come next january they will be making the decisions, not having them dictated to them.

[MadHound]

200. Well, you caught me at work

And all of my files from that time are thirty miles away. But I distinctly remember there being several prominent, mainstream polls(Time, Newsweek, Gallup) showing that the US public didn't want to go to war unilaterally nor pre-emptively. These same polls also showed that the US public was very much in favor of letting the UN inspectors do their work, no matter how much time it took. Anectotal evidence for this is obvious when you look at the long build up time to the war, with Bushco using this time to spread propaganda and whip up the populace. And with a '98 CIA report stating that there were no WMDs, with Scott Ritter also stating such, along with UNSCOM and IAEA coming up empty handed, it should have been obvious to anybody with even a modicum of sense that there were no WMDs. These facts were out there, even though they weren't broadcast far and wide in the "liberal media". However if you are a Congressman or Senator faced with such a grave decision, you should take the time and research what is going on. After all, if I, a normal Joe with access to the internet, find out these facts, then it should be a piece of cake for a person who has direct access to these reports and a staff to do the research.

And no, I can't and won't soften my heart towards anyone who aided and abetted the needless deaths of both Americans and Iraqis. When it comes down to a choice between political expediancy or saving thousands of innocents from a needles death, well, hell its obvious that politics should be chucked out the window every single time. Unfortunately with this gang, they made the wrong choice, and now and forever will have the unwashable blood of innocents on their hands. And as such, I cannot aid or abbett such callous monsters who put their career ahead of saving lives. That isn't the morality I was taught.

No, these quisling Dems had one bright moment to avert the Iraq tragedy, and defang the Bush presidency. They could have hammered home these reports, these facts, secure in the knowledge that the public was behind them. Instead they took the cowards way out, the low road, putting their own needs ahead of the overarching needs of our country and the world. That is the real reason WHY. And as such they have exposed the blackness of their souls.

And if you think that whoever wins in November will be able to make their own decisions instead of having matters dictated to them, you are sadly mistaken. Hell, they'll have all of those fine corporate masters to pay back, plus what their handlers say, along with what the party leadership is dictating to them. And if they bent over for IWR, I guarantee that they'll be walking into office already grabbing their ankles.

[JVS]

125. If the conservative Democrat Byrd could have the courage to...

defend the Constitution, why could Kerry not do the same?

[genius]

139. Dean was more pro-war than Kerry. He was pro-Biden-Lugar

Biden-Lugar would have gotten us into war earlier than March.

[genius]

141. If you can't vote for anyone who supported the March to war, your only

choices are Kucinich and Sharpton. Good choices. There was little difference between Dean and Kerry on this issue except that Dean lied a lot and was a little more pro-war than Kerry. Kerry did not support the war.

[redqueen]

146. Correct - Kucinich and Sharpton

Those are the only candidates who did not help the bush warmongers by spouting the fear-inducing nonsense about Iraq's WMD's.

The only ones.

[dreissig]

156. Litmus Test

IWR is a litmus test because it was straightforward - Shall the president have the authority to invade Iraq? No need for a lot of nuance, a simple yes or no was all that is required.

The whole world knew there was no justification for Bush's war. Nobody needed any special channels of information to know Bush was going ahead regardless of WMD's or not. Certainly John Kerry knew what Ted Kennedy knew.

In an act of stunning cowardice, John Kerry voted for the war. I am disappointed in the political judgement of the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.

[sangh0]

175. "No need for a lot of nuance"????

Bush* agrees

[youngred]

179. so its balck or white

with us or against us? ;-)

[curse10]

170. Great post YR

I agree. I never liked the IWR but I understand why someone may have voted for it. It's kind of like playing Jeopardy at home. I can get all the answers then, but I imagine I'd not be able to perform under all the pressure. We can't understand what a politician has to do on a daily basis. The decisions are difficult. And sometimes they make the wrong ones. But that doesn't mean we can't move on.

[youngred]

180. Thank You my friend

you said it far more succinctly than I did :-)

[On the Road]

187. IWR is not Quite a Litmus Test for Me

in the primaries I will support candidates first who clearly opposed the war (Dean, and K if he were competitive) followed by candidates who had ambiguous or limited support but are now clearly opposed (Clark, then Kerry), followed by those who stand by their initial support (Edwards, then Lieberman).

I will vote for any one of these candidates in the general election, although it will change my level of enthusiasm and support.

The thing is, I can really see the country getting excited about an Edwards candidacy. I can see him beating Bush. The thing that gets me every time is his enthusiasm about the Iraq War. It sounds to me like Edwards is going way beyond most other Democrats and is actually saying that he would have done the same thing if he were president.

Maybe he really wouldn't. Maybe it's just a smart political move in order not to appear strong and not get caught up in waffling and contradictory positions. But it chills me to the bone every time I hear it.

[IndianaGreen]

191. "For Democrats it was a time of fear."

You just made the case for the need for a real opposition party, and the need for the working class to bid farewell at what is left of a once great party.

Roots of the crisis

It is an illusion to believe that the issues confronting working people can be resolved simply by the removal of Bush. The Bush administration is, in the final analysis, the political expression of the desperation, disorientation and recklessness of the American ruling elite as it confronts a systemic social and economic crisis for which it has no rational, let alone progressive, solution. There is no question that Bush and his associates represent an especially foul, reactionary and even criminal element within this elite. But even if they were to be removed in November, their replacement by the candidates of the Democratic Party would not substantially alter the violent and destructive trajectory of American capitalism, either within the United States or internationally.

In the event of a Democratic Party victory, the campaign promises would soon be exposed as cynical exercises in electioneering demagogy. A new Democratic president would remain subservient to the same corporate interests and pursue the same imperialist strategy of world domination.

A fundamental and progressive shift in American policy requires not merely a change in the ruling personnel, but rather a social revolution that puts an end to the domination of the American people by corporate interests, massive private wealth and the profit system itself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27.shtml

[On the Road]

195. Unfortunately,

Once again, WSWS makes way too much sense.

I was really hoping that although Dean has been known to strike deals with business interests, he would do so honestly with the good of the country and the people in mind. This is still a corporate society, but corporations need to be controlled by democratic institutions, not vice versa. As it is now, we're well on our way back to the Gilded Age of the corporate masters.

[redqueen]

199. HEAR HEAR!!!!

:thumbsup:

[youngred]

203. don't I wish

unfortunately anything remotely termed socialist or communist will get nowhere here in the US.

The people have been blinded by things and mass media and the programs which would actually help them are derided as anti-american