What Happened to the Pledge so many of us took?

[Milo_Bloom]

Remember this?

http://web.archive.org/web/20041011133303/http://www.michaelmoore.com/petitions/peacepledge/index.php

I don't get it. I mean I REALLY don't get it.

My fiance and I were the first to donate to Howard Dean's campaign online (and she got to speak at a Rally in LA because of it). We made that donation because Dean was the candidate speaking out against the insanity, because he stood against the majority of candidates who we had vowed to fire. We worked hard for him, but it didn't work out.

In the interest of stopping bush, we even held our noses tight and voted for Kerry, despite vowing to fire him just a year earlier.

Despite not getting rid of bush in 2004, we wound up with the best possible outcome... bush finally showed his full ass to the entire country and has managed to turn nearly everyone against him. The entire GOP is falling apart because of bush's blunders.

Why is anyone even considering, for a moment, rewarding one of his enablers?

Because of the state of the country right now and the bad taste bush has left in everyone's mouth, The Democrats can actually win with a honestly good candidate. Not since 1976 have the Democrats had this type of opportunity to field just about any candidate we choose and have a really good chance of winning.

Why would anyone seriously consider voting for one of the candidates we vowed to fire just a few years ago??

Edwards? A Co-sponsor of the IWR??????

Clinton? Who only changed her opinion on the war when the popular tide shifted?

Kerry? He couldn't even definitively speak out against the war when he ran.

We pledge to fire them and now we are willing to hand them the presidency on a silver platter, because luckily bush is taking the full blame for a mess they helped create???

I am sorry, but I just don't get it.

If you didn't take this pledge and weren't fully against the war, I can see how you can now support one of the enablers...

But, if you took that pledge, if you vowed never to vote for one of the enablers against, how can you justify supporting them now?

[snowbear]

1. I guess I'm safe?

I just answered someone poll on here with an "Other" response:

"

Other: ...(1) Clark ..... (2) Richardson...... (3) Obama

~~~~~~~~~~~

[dweller]

2. kucitizen

here.

dp

[mikelgb]

19. ditto

[ClintonTyree]

3. That's why I make it a point....

to never make pledges I might not be able to keep. My favorite candidate hasn't announced his Presidential bid. Yet: Al Gore. :)

[AtomicKitten]

4. As I recall, the ABC boycott lasted about 10 minutes at DU.

I'm with you, though, even though I wasn't at DU then to make the pledge.

[Bjorn Against]

17. The ABC boycott was poorly organized and destined to fail

As was the pledge from the original link.

The reason they were both destined to fail is that there were no conditions placed on the offending parties. People just said they were never going to watch ABC again no matter what. Well of course ABC is going to occasionally run some good shows, and as soon as they do that you are going to have many people getting tempted to watch and breaking their pledge.

If we would have had some concrete reasonable demands for ABC to meet then there may have been more incentive for people to stick around. Similarly if the pledge above had only applied to primary races and not the general election, it may have had a chance because people could feel like they could keep their pledge without helping Republicans.

[Jim Sagle]

21. My ABC boycott is fine. I haven't watched a single second of any

Disney-affiliated channel since.

[AtomicKitten]

22. me neither

[Tactical Progressive]

5. Maybe people have realized what a dishonest pledge

against good Democrats that always was, even if they didn't when they made it?

For instance, saying that Hillary or Kerry "voted in favor of George Bush's war" is a flat-out lie. Perhaps some progressives have grown up politically enough to understand political reality, even in the face of people who continue to misrepresent not only what the IWR meant, but what it actually says as well.

Maybe they're not going to vote for the future of this country based on phony sanctimoniousness.

I'd like to think so, but maybe it is something else.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

(Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16.


Facts don't flat-out lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

[NV1962]

8. The IWR was passed with greater Senate support than the Gulf War in 91!

[Tactical Progressive]

12. No, facts don't flat-out lie.

People who twist facts flat-out lie.

Some major realities IWR-liars *intentionally* ignore:

1) It doesn't take much to see just how non-supportive Dem Senators were of what Bush actually ended up doing. High-profile Dems, like Hillary and Kerry and Clark, among many others, gave speeches detailing their non-support for any kind of reckless, pre-emptive war, even while supporting the IWR. This is of course the most obvious lie of people who say things like "voted in favor of George Bush's war", ie this dishonest pledge. That is a flat-out lie - none of them favored Bush's invasion, and it's easy enough to verify in their own words.

2) Bush lied about everything. The IWR authorization was contingent on multiple justifications, including WMDs, a clear and present intention to threaten America and harboring terrorists, all of which we now know were carefully crafted lies and intelligence manipulation regarding circumstances. Bush lied again, about his intentions, in addition to lying about the situation. He had no intention of letting inspections prove no weapons or of fulfilling international support as promised.

And while a few were provable lies at the time, most were not. Even today they are called 'mistakes' by much of the country, like for instance the media, who still won't call Bush a liar for how he forced us into a war - there were 'mistakes made' even after all we know now. Yeah, yeah, IWR-liars all knew everything, beforehand, except they didn't really, only now. Gosh, that's kind of another lie all by itself, but let's just leave that out and say that hindsight doesn't impress me in the least.

3) The IWR meant nothing. Building up the IWR as some kind of morality test is almost a supreme dishonesty by IWR-liars. The fact that IWR-liars don't understand in the least the political realities of the IWR is, in my considered opinion, a very solid reason not to respect or trust IWR-liar opinions on anything political. Absolutely pathetic, in more than one way, to not see what the IWR really came down to.

There is alot more of course, but these are just the some of the IWR-liar contingent's major dishonesties. I'd call them misunderstandings, but the seething condemnations combined with the intentional ignorance kind of takes it all out of the benign realm.


I'm very proud of Hillary and Kerry's IWR votes. It took alot of courage and they did exactly the right thing. I guarantee you that John Kerry and Wes Clark, combat veterans both, were more against a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq than any of the sanctimonious accusers in the progressive community, even though they supported the IWR. IWR-liars should try to understand why that was, but I know they don't have the intellectual integrity to even try. Posers. And liars.

The fact that IWR-liars remain purposefully ignorant of these and other realities about and surrounding the IWR shows their political judgement to be childish at best, and for many, based on their demeanor, to my mind, politically infantile. From what I've seen here, it's going to be at least ten years before many of them even start to grow up politically, whether they are 18 or 80.

Why they want to behave with the nasty, self-righteous dishonesty of your typical Republican, I do not fully understand.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I've kept true to my promise

and will do so in 2008. I wrote in Dean's name in 2004 as I refused to vote for a war enabler. I can't fire any of them because no one from my state is running for president. Feinstein was up for re-election last year and I didn't vote for her.

I'm not a big fan but I guess I'll have to vote for Kucinich in the primaries IF I get a chance (I'm in CA). That is unless Al Gore runs in which case everyone else needs to drop out.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. I'm willing to accept clear unambiguous apologies

for past actions, and clear unambiguous statements about future intentions to get us the heck out of Iraq as soon as possible. That leaves announced candidates Biden Edwards Kucinich and Obama in, and announced candidate Clinton out. As things stand I will vote for Kucinich as he best represents my views on almost all issues. I realize he can't win. I don't care.

[Tactical Progressive]

14. They don't owe you any apologies

Clear or otherwise. Sorry, they don't have any blood on their hands. Nothing Hillary, Kerry or even Edwards ever did caused us to, or could have prevented us from, invading Iraq.

But this: "I will vote for Xxxxx as he best represents my views on almost all issues. I realize he can't win. I don't care." - is EXACTLY why 3000 Americans are dead in Iraq.

Maybe you should think about apologizing instead.

Unless you were one of the self-righteous progressives who voted for Nader in 2000, or promoted the not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference green theme to the general public, in which case don't bother, the damage has already been done. Apologies are no longer being accepted.

I will apologize though, for injecting some political reality into your apology demands.

[Zodiak]

18. Benchley, is that you? n/t

[mopinko]

20. you know he

is here somewhere.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. I should apologize.

Yes I should apologize for being against the war from the start, for clearly seeing that the administration was lying its ass off before the IWR, for pointing out that the occupation was likely to be a complete disaster, and for being pissed as hell at every one of our so-called leaders who did not have the courage to vote against this war. I should apologize for working my ass off for Senator Kerry's election, putting aside my differences over his IWR vote, in the hope that he would do the right thing once he won, only to watch in disbelief as the election was stolen again and our candidate gave up without a fight. I should apologize for putting all that aside and plunging right back into grass roots GOTV efforts for our successful 2006 congressional campaign, a victory fueled by widespread opposition to the hideous blunder in Iraq, by the criminal negligence of katrina, and by the most likely misplaced hope that our party might be un-corrupt enough to do anything about the disastrous course we are on. I should apologize for expecting our party's leadership to stand in unity in clear opposition to failed criminal and dangerous policies, and to take all possible actions to end those policies. And finally I should apologize for demanding that any candidate that wants my vote needs to meet my standards on this issue.

I should apologize for all these things, or so you say, but you know what? I just don't feel that an apology right now would be honest or sincere, so if you don't mind, I won't.

[Tactical Progressive]

25. You have nothing to apologize for any of those things

Nice strawman. Rather, you should consider apologizing, figuratively obviously, for these two things:

1) for implicitly blaming Democrats for anything to do with invading Iraq, when nothing they could have done or not done would have made the slightest difference whatsoever as to whether Bush would actually use the military to do his bidding. They had no power to stop this war. You know that, yet you persist on blaming people who are not to blame. That's dishonorable sliming of honest Democrats.

2) for threatening to do in the future EXACTLY WHAT DID give Republicans in 2000 the political power to invade Iraq. Progressives exercising your 'standards' against Gore were vital in helping put right-wing thugs into a position to invade the Middle East for control of oil. When you do something like that, and I realize you haven't you're just threatening, then you lose any small credit you think you deserve for your ideological positions, no matter how noble they might be. People who sold Dems out in 2000 have everything the Bush administration has done, on their hands. They can look in the mirror and see who helped kill and maim 20,000 Americans. What the hell kind of moral 'standard' is that? The kind where they need to blame others for what they did. You really don't want to be in that position.

Think it through. You are better than both of the above attitudes.

[sendero]

10. I don't make such pledges..

.... because I don't beleive anything is as simple as one vote or one position.

That said, I pretty much agree with you, but there is a pragmatic decision that has to be made.

Should one of these folks get the nomination, and let's face it as of today that is certainly possible if not likely, will we hold our nose and vote for them or what?

I am vehemently against the nomination of HRC or JK, and still a bit confused by Edwards. But if one of them is nominated, I'll probably vote for them. There really isn't much alternative, there is no viable third party and there won't be anytime soon.

[solara]

11. I wasn't here for the pledge, so I am wondering

Are you advocating the default election of a republican if Clinton , Edwards or Kerry get the nomination? I mean, if our only choice is between Cinton and say, for arguments sake, Brownback - are you seriously suggesting that we vote for Brownback ( who vows to overturn Roe v. Wade) by NOT voting for the Dem candidate? I am just askin' :shrug:

Thanks

[Milo_Bloom]

23. What I am "advocating" is...

NOT supporting the enablers during the primaries and working as hard as possible to defeat them within the primaries, sending a clear message to the democratic party that weak actions like "speaking out against a war" as you are voting to authorize it is unacceptable and will NEVER be tolerated.

We have a really rare opportunity here. The opposition party is in shambles and will probably not be able to win, no matter who is chosen by the democrats. The only chance the GOP has is to put up someone like Hagel or Chafee and that ain't happening. And to be perfectly frank, if it was a choice between Clinton, Edwards, Kerry or Chafee... I would vote for Chafee because he had the freakin balls to vote against the IWR, so he is someone I trust to stick to his princples and study actual facts (and not opinion polls) before making decisions.

And again, this is only for people who took that pledge... if you didn't, that's fine.. I am not suggesting everyone should have; however, if you did.. how can you just let it go?

With the exception of holding my nose and voting for Kerry, I haven't voted for a single candidate who voted for the IWR and this includes Henry Waxman, who I spoke to shortly before the vote and was led to believe there was no way he would support it. He hasn't gotten a dime or a vote from me since that moment.

Voting the wrong way on a tax bill or even on something like the Patriot Act is forgivable, because it can be reversed. Airing a crappy piece of propoganda can be forgiven... ABC airing a propoganda piece doesn't directly kill anyone. Voting yes on the IWR did. You can't reverse death.

[Apollo11]

13. Pledge or not ... your point is valid

I respect the fact that John Edwards has come clean about the situation in Iraq, and has admitted he was wrong to co-sponsor the IWR.

But I respect much MORE the fact that Al Gore spoke out agains the Bu$h-Cheney-Rumsfeld policy on Iraq from the beginning - in speeches going back to 2002 - insisting on giving the UN inspectors more time to carry out their mission and maintaining a broad international consensus.

There is no hurry for Gore to enter the race for 2008. He is doing a great job raising public awareness about the climate crisis (he spoke to 10 000 people in Boise on Monday!). He is also busy working on his next book "The Assault on Reason" - to be published in May*.

Depending on how things pan out, and the reaction to his forthcoming book, Gore can consider his situation over the summer and announce his decision sometime in the fall.

Don't forget that Bill Clinton did not start his campaign until October 1991 - 12 weeks before the start of the '92 primaries. But Al Gore already has nationwide respect and name recognition that other wannabees can only wish for!

And by the way - Gore is younger than Hillary, Clark, Kerry, McCain and Guiliani! :)

Unless and until Gore endorses another candidate, we have to assume that he is keeping his options open. So it is too soon for those of us who prefer Gore to switch our allegiance.

* see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition!
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

[Recursion]

15. Personally that's why I don't take pledges like that

There's no curing the past, and the best person for today may have done something that made you mad yesterday. You know, redemption and all. It's possible.

[TwilightZone]

16. So, let's see. Our choices were/are a) vote for a Democrat; b) vote for a Republican, c) don't vote.

I choose a).

I will also choose a) in 2008, voting for whomever wins the Democratic nomination. The alternative is a Republican, probably Rudy or McCain, and that is even less acceptable than voting for a Democrat who voted for the IWR and has since acknowledged that it was a mistake.

The only hope for the future is that Democrats set the agenda. Perhaps you can explain how that's going to happen if we don't vote.