"I made a mistake when I Supported the IWR" = Political Suicide?

[Stargleamer]

If a candidate, say Edwards or Kerry, were to come out and say, "I made a mistake when I supported the Iraqi War Resolution. Like the majority of Americans I believed the President when he told us that Iraq posed a huge danger to this country. I have since learned that I was mislead by the President as to the magnitude of that danger.", then I don't see how such candor pre-empts a candidate from criticizing Bush about any aspect of the war. It seems that such honesty allows a candidate to criticize; it's only when a candidate doesn't admit to having made a mistake that they're more hindered in being able to criticize Bush over the war, if they voted for the IWR.

But does such candor result in political suicide? None of the candidates or even non-candidates who voted for the IWR has admitted to having made a mistake, so it seems that they think it would hurt their chances. But would it really, given that so many other Americans are just gradually beginning to see that there was no significant Iraq-Al-Qaida link, and that there were no WMD?

[kentuck]

1. Didn't Harkin come out and say that?

I doubt that it hurt him....but he's not running for President.

[Sapphocrat]

2. Hasn't Kerry expressed some form of regret?

Seems that's the message I've been getting -- and first got out of Will Pitt's long post about lunch with Kerry, et al.

If my impression is wrong, then that's a whole 'nother ballgame. But it was just this impression that's softened me considerably to Kerry.

[Guaranteed]

13. No, he touts his vote. nt

[zoeyfong]

3. It's unbelievable and stinks of politics from a mile away.

[AP]

4. "I made a mistake pilorying Democrats on an issue I know Bush

set up as a trap for Democrats" = smart move?

If people who want Bush to lose would say that, do you think we'd have a better chance of winning in 2004? I don't see how doing that preempts us from criticizing Bush on the issues on which most voters see the Democrats as being much better than Republicans.

[MercutioATC]

6. No, "I was a fool for "trusting" a Repub who surrounded himself with

stormtroopers" is more like it. All I hear is "I trusted the President...He PROMISED..."

Wah.

Bush is a Republican. What's more, he's a Republican who has a cabinet made up of some truly scary bastards. Anybody who says they trusted him enough to give him Congressional approval so start a war at his discretion is 1) lying, 2) too naive to be President or 3) too stupid to be President.

C'mon...trusting him enough to give Congressional approval? Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe...approval to start a war at his discresion? Never.

[AP]

21. Had they given Bush hell, play out the next 6 years for me.

Tell me what would have happened? I'd love to hear your version. When you're done, I'll tell you what I think would have happened.

[MercutioATC]

25. They'd have voted their conscience. They'd have voted like Dems should.

Practical difference? Probably zero, with a Republican Congress.

As it was, they "trusted" a man they had no business trusting (if that's really what they did). I think that speaks VOLUMES about their judgement.

If you KNOW you're going to lose, do you stand your ground or back the "dark side"? I'd like to think MY elected representative had the balls to stand his ground.

[AP]

26. They vote with their conscience and Bush just lets it go?

You think the Democrats would have been treated better or worse than the French.

The French didn't stop Bush. America hated the French.

And then what happens?

What happens the next day?

[MercutioATC]

27. What??? Are you saying it was OK to vote that way for short-term

political gain??

...a lot of good it did them. Notice how well Dems did in '02? Maybe because, like Dean says, they started looking like pale versions of their Repub rivals?

To answer, the NEXT day is today. Today is the day that voters have begun to listen to the arguments that SHOULD have been presented to them by our Democratic leaders years ago. I hope every one of them remembers who makes decisions based on what they feel is right and who votes for political gain.

[AP]

30. No. For the long term. It will probably make a difference in

whether Bush gets to invade Syria, Yemen and Iran. If he wins election, he's not stoppig at Iraq. You frame your opposition to any candidate who voted yes on morality. How moral is it to insist on a stance which will almost definitely result in a Bush vicotry, which would allow him to kill many more peole than he has killed already.

Your single-issue ethical purity test is probably the least moral position you could take if you want to think out beyond today, like, say, to the election, and to 2005-2009.

[MercutioATC]

32. Sorry, I don't buy that rationale. I'm not willing to sacrifice morality

for a ghost of something that might or might not be.

A question: If the Dems has stood firm on this issue, what makes you believe Bush would have invaded Syria, Yemen and Iran, especially in light of the troop deficiencies we're already experiencing? If they HAD voted against it, might they not have had the opportunity to make a LOT of noise about what is now an increasingly unpopular war? Might that not have led to political gain come 2004 and 2006?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...

It's usually easier to just do the right thing the first time than have to dig yourself out later. Giving Congressional authorization to the war was the WRONG thing.

[AP]

36. Why is it less moral to want to get Bush out and save Iran, Syria and

Yemen from inevitable invasion? And who says an up vote on a stupid, meaningless resolution that Bush would have found a way around is immoral?

[MercutioATC]

38. I don't see the causal connection here. How does this vote get Bush out

and save Iran, Syria and Yemen?

First, I think it just strengthened Bush's position. He can now claim he did what he did with Congressional support...even the Democrats supported him.

Secondly, I don't think Bush had the OPTION of invading either Yemen, Syria or Iran. We simply don't have the troops.

That aside, we've seen public support for this war wane. How much more unpopular would it be if our elected Democratic leaders had done their job and spoken against it? How much support would Bush have had for other wars (Iran, Syria, etc) regardless of available troops?

Congressional authorization is not a "stupid, meaningless" thing. It implies support. Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards gave their support for this war with their votes. I may REALLY dislike Lieberman, but at least he's willing to stick by his vote. Edwards and Kerry are playing the "I was decieved" game that I HOPE nobody buys. The vote was wrong and they should just admit it and move on.

[AP]

44. If Bush wins 2004, we're invading more countries.

If the Democrats voted against the IWR, not only would Bush have invaded Iraq, but the Democrats would have had to pull up stakes and take the whole party to France, because that's where they would have been in the minds of most Americans.

Don't you remember how much we hated the French, and they didn't even stop Bush from doing a damn thing?

[MercutioATC]

46. Oh, please...even supposing that were true, HOW would supporting him

in the war REDUCE his chances of being elected? For that matter, how will the IWR prevent him from invading other countries after 2004?

As far as your repeated "France" references, I don't think Dems could have done much worse than they did in 2002 (and even if they had, it wouldn't have made a difference, Congress is firmly Republican as it is). However, the war is becoming increasingly unpopular. I don't think the majority of people would "send their Congressman to France" for voting against it at this point (which bears out my "short-term gain" statement in an earlier post).

The real issue is that it wasn't UP to the French to stop Bush. That was OUR job. Our elected Democratic legislators not only failed to do that, they actually gave Bush Congressional support to wage war at his discretion.

[AP]

47. How would No vote her Dem? Look at Iowa and NH vote.

Dems could have faired much worse in 2002. But 2002 was the product of 9/11 -- as Carlos once said, the gift that kept giving for Bush.

I don't know how to be more clear about this: Dems are weak on national security. Any election that focuses on it, Dems will lose. A no vote would have made it an issue for the candidates voting no. A yes vote will be used by the RW to drive a wedge into the left, which is happening in pockets at DU but obvioulsy not happening in IA and NH (the anti-war vote went to Kerry!!!).

A no vote would have been principled in the short term, but it wouldn't have had any influence on the way things transpired, except that Bush would have exploited it make that candidate seem week on national security and to make the focus of the campaign national security, which is, as I said, a guaranteed loser for Dems.

[MercutioATC]

49. "How would No vote her Dem"??? What does that even MEAN??

Like I said, Dems could not have done much worse regardless...and now, they'd at least have an argument against Bush policy had they voted against the IWR. As things stand, we were seriously weakened in 2002 and don't even have a leg to stand on in 2004/2006. It's hard to criticize somebody when you voted to give them support to wage war "at their discretion".

[AP]

22. Had they given Bush hell, play out the next 6 years for me.

Tell me what would have happened? I'd love to hear your version. When you're done, I'll tell you what I think would have happened.

[joshcryer]

15. Smart move/cowardly move?

Hmm...

[AP]

I ask you the same question I just asked M.

[AP]

23. I ask you the same question I just asked M.

[lastknowngood]

5. IF they keep saying "what a happy war"

they are not likely to gain any democratic voters. They better realize that now is the time to admit a mistake and they may get some voters back. Those who voted for the IWR,leave every child behind and the leave no millionaire behind tax cuts have very little to differentiate themselves from the shrub. If give the choice of a republican light or a republican they will take the republican every time.

[genius]

7. You're probably right. Their vote against the occupation tells me that

Kerry and Edwards are now on the right side.

[BeatleBoot]

8. Straw Men Do Not

an argument make...

NEXXT!!!!

[isbister]

9. Kerry's held the same position all along

Herry said what he'd do if bush didn't live up to his promises when he (Kerry) spoke from the floor of the Seante at the time of the vote and he has done so.

[MercutioATC]

16. He SAID he's whine about it??? What else has he done?

...actually, not much, which is exactly what the legislation he voted for gave him the power to do. The IWR gave Congressional approval for a war based on what they "trusted" a Republican President who'd surrounded himself with stormtroopers would do.

That's just plain stupid.


...unless it was a political move designed to appeal to a popular (but very stupid) war.

Hmmmmm....is Kerry an opportunist or dumb? I'd bet he's an opportunist.

I have nothing against that, but it's funny to see him try to explain the vote now that the war's not so popular. Hey, you reap what you sow...he has this coming.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. You know what's opportunist?

Dean's phony posturing that he was some kind of implacable opponent to the war in Iraq.


Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html



Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html



Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html






Dean: "It's hard to criticize the president when you've got troops in the field" Dean to ease up on Bush

What a total fraud.

[MercutioATC]

33. Actually, not at all...

as you list the quotes:

1) Dean wasn't willing to leave U.S. security to the whim of other nations, but he gave a reasonable time frame for action. As I recall, even France said they'd support our decision with 30-60 days of further investigation (I remember being shocked that we chose not to wait, in light of the uproar it was going to cause).

2) Yep, I totally agree with that quote. IF the threat was proved imminent, we should have moved. The point is, it wasn't.

3) Again, he WAS a "bad man" and he should not have been permitted to possess WMD that had the capability of harming us. I don't see the issue with this quote, either.

These positions ARE different than voting to give Congressional approval for Bush to wage war at his discretion with the "trust" that he'd "do the right thing". Hell, if we believed they'd do the right thing, wouldn't WE be Republicans?

[corporatewhore]

10. How can somebody justify not saying it was a mistake

How can it be suicide when kay proves that iwr was wrong What are they going to even though there were no wmds it was right to invade and kill thousands of iraqis?

[Myra]

11. As far as I'm concerned, they committed political suicide with the *votes*.

Stammering about it after the fact is inconsequential.

But they do make it even worse by ignoring it, and worse
still by boasting about it.

[Skip Intro]

12. Where is HONESTY?!

If Edwards or Kerry voted for the illegal invasion and have since come to realize they were wrong - which isn't exactly rocket science, they were wrong - then I believe they'd earn respect from Dems and disaffected repukes as well if they'd just admit that. It would earn my respect.

Pretending everything is ok and that "well, lets move on cuz saddam was a bad man anyway" earns well-deserved suspicion and scorn.

If you supported the invasion you were wrong. To refuse to admit that, as the evidence grows to the contrary, not only hurts the candidate, but hurts the party as a whole.

We were lied into a war, and tens of thousands of people are DEAD as a result. This cannot be glossed over.

Are we a party of honesty and candor, or pretense and deception?

We aren't going to get anywhere by being bush-lite on this issue.

What about right and wrong?

[joshcryer]

18. Pandering is apparently "politically smart."

Who would've thought?

[Lugnut]

19. My sentiments exactly.

I can accept an admission of error. I can't accept excuses.

[spooky3]

28. I don't think Edwards now believes he WAS wrong.

Many DUers seem to think he does and he is just lying about it.

Obviously I can't be inside his head, so maybe they are right, but I don't see what political mileage anyone would gain from doing that. From what I have seen of him, he does not think he did the wrong thing. Since that time he voted against the $87 billion because, he said,

--he wanted to force Bush to come back to the Congress with a (better) plan for internationalizing the peacekeeping
--he wanted an exit strategy
--he wanted Bush to stop insisting on all of the control, because sharing it with allies such as France and Germany might have gotten them to work with us for a solution

Is he right or wrong? I don't know. I don't have the info he and Kerry and Kucinich and Lieberman had in Sept. 2001 or at the time of IWR. What would we have done if we'd had that info and each of their constituency in North Carolina vs. MA vs. OH vs. CT? I do know that the buzz among the average people in the DC area was NOT what Clark said in the debate tonight--maybe he was just referring to the Congress and Pentagon powerful folks. It was not at all clear to all of us on the street that there were no WMD and that Bush was just itching to start a war IN IRAQ in Sept. 2001.

[arewethereyet]

14. suicide ? of course

what you believe is what you believe, simple.

[gate of the sun]

17. They should apologize

and be honest....but hey maybe they are not sorry and that's what scares me and bothers me about these guys.

[salinen]

20. But, but, we're winning the war

This is being said over and over. As if by winning = justification. Everyone wants to hitch their sentiments on "Americans are smarter than given credit" Not if they buy that swayback.

[Darranar]

24. I agree...

but I like Kerry and Edwards nevertheless, despite their stance on IWR.

[gate of the sun]

41. people died and they had a part in it

you make it sound like you disagreed on some trivial issue..sorry to be so blunt but it is a big deal.

[MercutioATC]

51. Good for you, gate of the sun. This needs to be said.

The IWR vote gave Congressional approval for the 500+ American deaths in Iraq. Who did that? Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman.

They DO bear some responsobility for those deaths.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. People vote for strength.

Outrage is much more appropriate than an apology.

[w4rma]

35. This is and was not an example of strength. It is weakness and an

unwillingness to fight for public opinion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. You don't apologize for doing what you think is right.

[MercutioATC]

39. It was "right" to give Congressional support to Bush to wage war at his

discretion???

THAT'S how the IWR reads.

[gate of the sun]

43. yes it does and none of us should forget it.......

most of us felt like a cold wind had blown through our souls.....let's not forget it.

[gate of the sun]

42. hey I agree with that

outrage is much more appropriate .....I was being too polite.

[yowzayowzayowza]

34. "I was lied to by pResident Bush like...

everyone else."

What's the problem with that?

[MercutioATC]

40. What's wrong is that any moron should have known that you don't trust

a Republican President who's chosen a cabinet that's just to the right of Atilla the Hun.

[yowzayowzayowza]

48. Welp...

As unbelievable as it may be, a whole lotta Americans are just now beginning to understand that they were duped. They won't find it had to believe that their repz were also duped on a more advanced level. Isn't this what Kerry is claiming?

[MercutioATC]

50. "a whole lotta Americans" didn't vote to authorize Congressional support

Our elected Congressmen did. I EXPECT them to have more information than I do (that is, after all, their job).

Why is it, if they were "duped", they don't express regret for their votes? Kerry has stated that he stands behind his vote because he "trusted" Bush. I repeat, what moron trusts an obviously reactionary President to wage war responsibly, especially when he's surrounded himself with really scary jackbooted bastards?

The bottom line? The war enjoyed a 67%+ approval rating because Democrats allowed Republicans to frame it as an "anti-terrorist" action and those same Democrats rode that approval wave for votes. Unfortunately for them, some are being asked to justify those votes now. I say it serves them right.

[elsiesummers]

45. Yes - it's political suicide.

In fact, forget the loss in Iowa and the scream, Howards Dean committed political suicide when he came out against the war, only he didn't know it yet.

This sucks, but no anti-war candidate can win the GE.

This is why I think the media killed Dean's candidacy.

The sense of nationalism in the US means that, regardless of how screwed up Bush's policys are, citizens as a whole are incapable of digesting and admitting that we invaded a sovereign nation.

Basically, a candidate that tells everyone we (collective we) supported an immoral war is dead in the water.

So - it has to be brushed over and pushed aside if a Democrat is to be elected.

That sucks, but there it is.

[rpf113]

52. Absolutely not.

I believe it actually has some value:

1. It will seem to moderate voters that the IWR supporters are not just Bush haters, since they were willing to vote to support him.

2. Now they can express righteous anger at having been misled.

I think this has actually much more appeal to the general electorate than a mere anti-war stance.

[stickdog]

53. It's media suicide.

The corporate media has decided this issue can't be on the table as it shows the media's 100% complicity with Bush's les.