3,901 US Troops Killed in Iraq. Do Clinton, Edwards, Dodd & Biden Have Their Blood On Their Hands?

[Dems Will Win]

On this last Sunday of the year let us consider the 4 Democratic votes for the war.

What would have happened if Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd hadn't made their cold political calculations to vote YES on the authorization resolution for war, but had instead, actually gone to read the NIE and then filibustered the bill to death with the claim that the full NIE does not present a case for invasion??

Remember that the inspectors in March '03 just needed a few more weeks to complete their report and declare there were no WMD in Iraq since 1995.

So? That's right, there likely would have been NO invasion and occupation of Iraq for oil!

Does this mean the blood of 3,901 US troops, dead for a war for oil, is on the hands of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden? Does this mean we would have not taken our eye off the ball, remained in Afghanistan, reduced the Taliban and al-Queda to far less than they are now, where the Taliban have taken back 75% of Afghanistan and managed with AQ to throw Pakistan into total chaos?

You're damn straight it does.

Let me repeat: the blood of 3,901 US troops, as well as several hundred thousand Iraqis, is on the hands of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. They wanted to be President so bad they gave authority they never should have to President Cheney and now all those people are dead.

In this primary, if you vote for them with this knowledge over a candidate who was against the war, that blood is on your hands as well.

This is not a twisting of the facts. It was a war based on lies, and Graham, who had read the full NIE, told them to go read the full report -- that it would change their minds - BUT NONE OF THEM DID. So they all voted YES so they could run to the center for President!

That's why it is correct for me to say: In this primary, if you vote for them over a candidate who was against the war, that blood is on your hands as well. This has been true throughout history. Just because the Republicans intimidated these 4 Wimpocrats in 2002 to vote YES to give authority to Cheney does not change that eternal truth.

Think about it. Those 3900 troops would have not been killed in Iraq. The Taliban would not control everything in Afghanistan except Kabul. And Pakistan's nukes would not be in the danger of being taken by radicals that they are in today.

This is not beanbag, kiddies, this is war, life and death. 4 candidates made a horrific vote for political gain, refusing to go read the truth in the NIE. Listen to your conscience...

Please recommend if you agree that the blood of these troops and civilians is on the hands of those who voted to give authority to Cheney.

And yes, I AM politicizing the deaths of several hundred thousand.

You're damn straight I am.

[cyclezealot]

1. They authorized the war

I'd vote yes. Sen. Bob Graham warned them. He knew Bush's intelligence was a sham. Hillary believed Bush before Sen. Graham. I say there is not excuse.

[Dems Will Win]

2. If you vote for Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden, blood is on your hands too, for they did not

go read the NIE as Graham told them to. I'm glad you agree.

Maybe we can change some minds around here with this. Make people think for a minute now that the number of dead has risen past 3900.

[ClarkUSA]

6. The number of dead doesn't include soldiers who die from wounds flown outside of Iraq

So really, the number of dead from the war is far higher than Iraq, BushCo number jiggering aside.

[Dems Will Win]

11. OR the thousands upon thousands who committed SUICIDE because of these 4 Democrats

caving in to President Cheney.

[cyclezealot]

13. and Bob Graham came from a red state.

usually that dulls one's senses. Remember, Bob Graham ran for president appaled at what Bush had been allowed to do thanks to faulty intelligence . thanks to the likes of Hillary and Edwards.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Sen. Leahy also warned them. The NIE report debunked the WMD meme but FEW READ IT.

I'd vote yes, too.

[Dems Will Win]

7. Let's not forget Edwards actually co-sponsored the War Resolution

and he did not go read the report which said the only real intelligence was that there had been no WMDs in Iraq since 1995. Edwards declared "We know Saddam has WMDs today."

[ClarkUSA]

9. I never forget that.

Believe me.

[denem]

4. The Decider has blood on his hands

Whatever responsibility other people share, one man commanded it, and made it so.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Of course... but when these senators had a chance to stand and say, "NO!" to Bush II, they did not.

Enabling a war - when the NIE report spelled out Bush's WMD meme was false - has its consequences.

[Enrique]

5. leave the dead troops out of it

[ClarkUSA]

8. Why? Is It An Inconvenient Truth?

:shrug:

[Dems Will Win]

10. Why? You don't want to think about it?

When can we think about it?

AFTER the primary? Then it's OK?

Can I just show you a picture instead?

[Dems Will Win]

69. How many faces are in this amazing artwork

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. If that is your criteria for blood on hands..then ever senator who

voted to continue funding the war also has blood on their hands. And that includes Obama.

Kucinich has clean hands.

[Dems Will Win]

15. Starting a War without reading the NIE and voting to fund troops already

under fire in the field are 2 different things.

I would give Obama props though for being STRONGLY against the war in 2002, and he voted to defund once you know.

Kucinich is unfortunately not viable, meaning the only one who could be President instead of these 4 is Obama.

Here is what Obama said in 2002 while the 4 Wimpocrats caved to President Cheney. Who was right?

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. I disagree: voting to continue the war is WORSE--cause by then THEY KNEW

by the time they voted to continue the war THEY KNEW what they did not know at the beginning.

They all knew--including Obama.

And frankly, many of US have blood on our hands, because instead of marching in the streets we type stupid posts on the internet from the saftey of our basement.

[Dems Will Win]

17. Perhaps but Dodd, Clinton, Edwards and Biden have MORE blood on their

hands it seems to me.

They were dumb enough to vote for a dumb war while Obama called it a dumb war and now they must pay for the consequences of that vote.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. Obama admitted that he does not know how he would have voted

and, based on his continued voting for the war--I think we all know how he would have voted.

[ClarkUSA]

24. That ol' red herring again? He said that to not upstage the pro-IWR Kerry-Edwards ticket in '04.

:eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. You crack me up--that is the beauty of Obama--he can change his statement

reverse his stance, and never be accountable.

Remember: Clinton also spoke against war. She also said that War is a last resort. Her position was no different than Obama's. The difference is that she was there. And Obama admitted that had he been there, he may have done the same thing.

You can repeat that lame lame excuse, which by the way calls into question his willingess to lie: he is willing to say anything to the public to get elected. It makes me recall Bush who admitted that he lied to the press about Rumsfeild's firing.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Obama chose not to trash his party's pro-IWR 2004 ticket. Period. Do you blame him for THAT now?

Keep trying to distract from your girl's pro-war neocon vote for BushCo. It won't work.

[medicswife]

62. Joe Biden's work for our military has saved lives

plain and simple hands down. He is directly responsible for the increase in MRAP's in Iraq and those vehicles have now saved hundreds of lives.

[GreenArrow]

29. it was much easier to get into Iraq

than it will be to get out. There was no reason for us to go into Iraq, period, and that should have been obvious from the get go. But ambitions and egos took precedence over common sense and common humanity. Getting out is a harder task, since it's not just a matter of getting our people out, it's a matter of taking responsibility for what we have done. Somehow, just going in there, wrecking the joint, destabilizing the place, taking control of the strategic resources, and then bugging out just doesn't get it. There must be a reckoning, and there must be justice.

[alteredstate]

32. Do you have a family member serving in Iraq right now?

Just wondering...

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. yes.

what is your fucking point? Is it that they HAD to give them funds for protection?

Do you honestly think that our government would keep our children in harm's way no bullets? That excuse is BS. They would have to withdraw the troops. They had plenty of money without the bill giving him a blank-check, to withdraw the troops. He would have HAD to withdraw them if he had no funds to keep them there.

And, if he did not. What is the alternative? To leave them in tents with no money or food or tanks or bullets? And we would stand for that?

It is a bogus argument.

Do YOU have any family members there?

[alteredstate]

45. Yes

What's my "fucking" point?

Yes, I do think they would have left the soldiers in Iraq without funding. My stepson was told that he would be dodging IEDs in Baghdad for a year and a half to two years with or without funding. Since you have a family member in Iraq, you probably know that the soldiers don't have the things they need to be safe right now. I can't imagine what would have happened if the funds were taken away.

If my stepson is killed, I blame those who voted to invade Iraq. I support Barack Obama because he spoke out against the war from the beginning.

[Evergreen Emerald]

46. Barack Obama voted for war funding time and again.

And that would have ended the war. There is no way our children would have been just left in Iraq without funding. It is a bogus argument.

Clinton also spoke out against war. War is a last resort. We trusted our government to keep their end of the bargain.

Our children would volunteer for the military and our government would protect them. Their very lives would not be used unless as a last resort. And Bush broke that promise.

Obama will mean four more years of a Republican in office. Because there is no way he has the strength to win a general election.



(I am sorry about your relatives. And believe me, I can relate). YOu and I disagree on how to change the course. And Clinton promised the very first day in office, she would end the war.

[medicswife]

60. YES. And my vote goes to Joe Biden

Because he is working hard to get our troops the equipment that they need. Because his own son is in the service and will deploy to Iraq in about a month. Because he has shown true leadership and gives honest answers even when they won't be politically fortuitous.

I think the original post about these four is absolutely outrageous. There are a lot of others responsible for the Iraq War vote. And beyond that is the twisting of intelligence and in my view flat out lying of the Bush Administration that led to these Senators voting the way that they did. At least Sen. Biden has admitted that his vote was a mistake, and is now doing everything that he can to protect them while they are there. If you want someone who has never made a mistake as your President, maybe you should write in Jesus Christ as your candidate.

And yes,the original post Pi$$ed me off. My husband is over there right now with his ass on the line and yet some would fault Senator Biden for his votes to protect my husband and the other troops who, as long as we have a Republican President, and as few Democrats in Congress as we do, will remain there indefinitely.

[ginchinchili]

68. Exactly right.

All politicians posture to their advantage, but Joe Biden is taking action to get our troops home and to protect them in the meantime. Biden is a pragmatist and lord knows we need someone with practical solutions and has the passion and energy to act on them.

[alteredstate]

64. I couldn't agree with you more.

That's why I'm voting for Senator Obama.

[kas125]

34. Yes, they do

and I told mine (Bayh) to his face, that he voted to give them more money, so he is complicit in the deaths of our soldiers and all those Iraqis, too. He seemed shocked that someone would say it to him, but I believe it's true.

[peace13]

19. Make no mistake, the blood of the dead and injured

Americans and Iraqis is on the hands of every American. Our money and misguided politicians got us into this mess but we are accountable. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have taken a stand, have made the trip to DC to take a stand and be counted. Every American needs to speak out and stand up for this war and these dead people. Peace, Kim

[kas125]

35. I disagree with this statement

There are some of us who work tirelessly, DAILY, to end the war just so we will NOT be complicit in those deaths. There are those of us who do more than sit and argue with like-minded people on our computers, and we do it so we won't be responsible for any part of that war.

[peace13]

47. Good that you can separate yourself out.

I too have worked to avoid and end this war. Have traveled by bus to DC to speak out. Stand on the corner in my hometown twice a week to promote peace. Maintain a memorial in our front yard to the soldiers who work tirelessly in their jobs ( 3900 flags and counting). This said...my tax dollars go to the killing machine and I am responsible for these deaths that our government does in my name. Keep up the good work. You are right about the computer. No need to yell as it turns out, I too do my part to end this madness I just have a different perspective from yours Peace and love, Kim

[suston96]

20. Only problem with your war whining is that ....

...the war in Iraq is not quite what Iowans and others have at the top of their list.

Having said that, Obama wasn't there to vote in 2002 so he cannot be compared to those who were there and who stood up to vote, one way or the other.

And finally, the blame in any court of law would be with Bush and Cheney and their co-conspirators who lied about the WMD. The Congress reacted with a large majority based on that crappy intelligence.

[cali]

21. While it's true that a large majority of Congress voted for the IWR, it

is decidedly not true that a large majority of dems did. In the House more dems voted against it, and in the Senate only a narrow majority of dems voted for it.

[suston96]

43. I see you have already been told.....

....using the dead Americans, with photos, to enhance the status of your candidate indicates desperation of the vilest kind.

[alteredstate]

55. October 26, 2002

"I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

Barack Obama
October 26, 2002

[Captain Hilts]

22. No. nt

[gulliver]

23. Everyone has blood on their hands.

But Bush and the Republican movement are accountable. Bush is the drunk driver. The Republican movement put him behind the wheel. The rest of us are the car.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Bush may have been "the drunk driver" but the pro-IWR senators helped give him the keys to the car.

Forgive me, but I expect more from Democrats than Republicans. For one thing, all of the pro-IWR senators should have read the NIE report
before they co-sponsored and/or voted to give Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. For another, the pro-IWR senators should have listened
to Sens. Bob Graham and Patrick Leahy (among many others) who loudly objected to the vote on the Senate floor and in public statements.
The pro-IWR senators should have listened to the antiwar Democratic base instead of what the polls told them was the politically popular
thing to do (or in the case of Hillary, what Condi Rice and Bush told her was true).

I will never vote for any Democrat who voted for IWR. If I knew and thousands of other Democratic activists and ordinary citizens as well as
Sens. Bob Graham et al knew BushCo was cherrypicking intel and pushing a false case for war, why didn't the pro-IWR Democratic senators?
The "experience" argument by any of these people doesn't hold much water if their judgment is so flawed. Many of them weren't even
competent enough to read the NIE! Politics as usual enabled the worst foreign policy mistake in American history.

[gulliver]

30. That approach doesn't work.

No one pictured Bush and his Republican administration being as sneaky, reckless, incompetent, and arrogant as they were later shown to have been. Hindsight is 20-20. The people themselves bought into it as did many major media outlets.

Not voting for any Democrat who voted for IWR is unethical, IMO, if they are up against a Republican.

[ClarkUSA]

36. "No one pictured Bush and his Republican administration being as sneaky, reckless, incompetent"??

Oh yes, they did. If you don't think so, you weren't paying attention to Scott Ritter, Jim Webb, Barack Obama, and many many other voices
who were raised in protest and truth. We Democratic activists were called conspiracy theorists THEN.

What is unethical is voting against your principles. I won't have to do that if Obama wins the nomination.

I'll pass on Clinton II, thanks. After the Clinton campaign staffers' "Obama is a dangerous Muslim Manchurian Candidate who studied at a
madrassa" emails and Bill Shaheen's race-baiting drug dealer smear, I won't ever support her or Clinton I again. If I wanted to support Karl
Rove tactics, I'd be a Bush Republican. Too bad I'm a proud progressive, the kind some DU Clintonians think are "useless as tits on a bull."

[no name no slogan]

42. How can you even say that after the 2000 election theft?

No one pictured Bush and his Republican administration being as sneaky, reckless, incompetent, and arrogant as they were later shown to have been.

You're kidding, right?

How could ANY Democrat trust what the Bush Administration was saying after what went down in 2000 in Florida? SERIOUSLY.

[gulliver]

50. Hey, I'm a 10%-er.

When Bush's approval rating hit 90%, I still despised him. One of my first threads at DU asked "Seriously. Is Bush responsible for 9/11?" This is when Bush was everybody else but DU's ducky mommy.

When I say "no one pictured..." I mean no one thought that the Bush Administration would set themselves up for the Republican-suicidal outcome that Iraq has become. It's not that I trusted them to be good. I trusted them not to do something so stupid, reckless, and incompetent it would ruin them. I was wrong.

What they did is impeachable, criminal even. Certainly it is a Republican catastrophe. The Senate buzzed the buzzer on the jewelry store door because Bush had Colin Powell and George Tenet vouching for him among others. The people themselves were ready for a stampede thanks to Bush et al. The media was played like a piano.

If WMDs had been found, even a couple, then the outcome would be completely different. And the Senate was being given heartfelt assurances that WMD would be found, that nuclear weapons were being sought. So they voted on a most likely anticipated outcome from their point of view and based on the evidence they had.

My problem with some of you good folks who oppose the war in what I regard as an overly simplistic way is that you seem to have decided to let Bush off the hook. You seem to want the jury to divide responsibility for the crime.

Well, the Dems have learned their lesson, and they don't need you and others punishing them. It aids the enemy (rotten Republicanism) to do so. My interpretation is that not supporting any Dem against any Republican is abetting the next crime.

[bvar22]

48. They ALL knew the pretext for the WAR was bullshit.

Some Dems voted FOR the WAR because they are owned by BigCorpo who wanted the War for Oil.
Some Dems voted FOR the WAR because they thought it would help them politically.

NO Democrat voted FOR the WAR because "Bush Fooled Them".

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

[gulliver]

51. Mind reading and question begging.

Bush smiles.

[bvar22]

59. Ahhh...bllsht...choo.

Bush smiled when compromised Democrats "supported" his WAR because he and the TV Pundits could endlessly spout..."But The Democrats voted FOR it too!!!!"


Are you going to seriously suggest that there are Democrats in Congress who are STUPID enough to have been fooled by Bush?
:rofl:

[gulliver]

67. Bless you.

I never said they were stupid...more like mugged.

I doubt there was a single Dem Senator or Congressman who wanted the war. The decision was forced on them by Bush and his fellow disgraced assholes in the Republican Party. The Dems made a reasonable decision based on what they believed the facts to be. Was it lazy, timid, politically calculating? Sure, somewhat.

I think blaming the Dems avoids the hard conclusion that Bush and his fellow self-adoring Republican fuck-ups caused the whole catastrophe. They think they are going to skate. Maybe they will.

[GreenArrow]

61. NO Democrat voted FOR the WAR because "Bush Fooled Them"

Can't be said often enough.

[alteredstate]

56. Here's what Senator Obama had to say about it.

"I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

[Dems Will Win]

27. Yes but who gave him the keys to the car?!?! You cannot get away from the fact that it was

Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden - of our Prez candidates.

[gulliver]

31. Republicanism gave Bush the keys.

The people have blood on their hands for letting themselves be gulled by the paranoid fantasy that Republicanism has become. Not voting against Republicanism in 2000 brought the war, but people did not see it for what it was (despite impeachment, and the degenerate Tom DeLay). The people should have known better. Republicanism must be voted against whenever it is up for a vote.

[ClarkUSA]

38. Yeah, IWR Dems were "misled". Keep repeating that to yourself while the rest of us roll our eyes.

:eyes:

[gulliver]

53. Sorry you and others feel you have to roll your eyes.

But I can only say what I have to say. You get to decide how you respond to it.

Allowing Bush and Republicanism to diffuse blame for the Iraq War is obscene. It lays the groundwork for the same kind of crime-and-obfuscation pattern to be used in the future.

The Dems have learned their lesson. Colin Powell has. The people have. The only people around here who don't seem to have learned their lesson are Bush and his Republican co-bunglers. Help them.

[ClarkUSA]

54. The only person trying to "diffuse blame for the Iraq War" is you.

"The Dems have" NOT "learned their lesson" as Hillary's and other's pro-Kyl-Lieberman votes demonstrate. Colin Powell has not
denied he was wrong, so far as I know.

There's plenty of blame to go around. Just ask Military Families Speak Out moms and dads, some of whom I have known personally
for the past four years.

[gulliver]

58. Be angry at the Dems if you want.

I am disappointed in them. But their mistakes are just shadows compared to those of Bush and his Republican co-bunglers. Spread the blame if you must, but I think any mention of Dem IWR votes that lacks a good paragraph on the culpable party (Bush and his Republicans), apportions blame grotesquely.

I am disappointed in the Dems, but I blame exactly one party for the war, for pushing it during an election, for biasing the facts needed for decision-making, for the complete and utter lack of humanity, for the laziness, the carelessness, the paranoia. The perpretators are known: Bush and his Republicans. They deserve the concentrated loathing of mankind. Their legacy should be a permanent repudiation of all they stand for. Anything that gets in the way of that, I am against.

[Dems Will Win]

63. Remember that the inspectors only needed a few more weeks to finish

A filibuster could have delayed things long enough to prevent a war. Also remember a war was just narrowly avoided with Iran because the NIE on that front was FINALLY released after a year.

[rucky]

33. The IWR did not authorize the attack

I thought we cleared this up with Kerry in 2004.

[ClarkUSA]

37. It was a blank check Congressional authorization for "Use of Force Against Iraq"

BushCo was very appreciative and ran with it.

[suston96]

49. It was not a blank check. Read the resolution.

[ClarkUSA]

52. I have. It was a blank check. Here's what Gen. Clark said in 2002 before the vote:

Here's an excerpt from a CNN appearance by General Clark on 9/16/02:

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of
what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is
they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do. So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just
say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints
are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into
the resolution.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

[Dems Will Win]

57. Good catch

[suston96]

65. I read and I repeat: no blank check.

Your quote:

".....don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation."

That's exactly what the resolution says. That is exactly what Hillary Clinton said.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14184

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

***********

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed." "

[bvar22]

71. More Hillary "DoubleSpeak".

Voted FOR it,
then makes a non-binding CYA Campaign Speeech saying she is AGAINST it.

Trying to have it BOTH ways?
YES!


No more Clintons!
Please.

[nyc 4 Biden]

40. This thread is disgusting. n/t

[Dems Will Win]

44. Biden was disgusting for his hawking of the war every chance he

could get on TV. At least Hillary didn't do what he did. Biden even shouted down Scott Ritter on TV.

Biden certainly has blood on his hands, more than even Clinton, Edwards, or Dodd IMHO. He was out there getting pumped up on TV with war fever.

That's what was disgusting.

[Dems Will Win]

72. Blood on his hands...

[sallyseven]

41. Your a big fat jerk.

What the hell are you a republican trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong. How old are you and have you been paying attention? Shame on you. I listened to my conscious and I will not vote for Kucinich.

[ginchinchili]

66. Biden has taken responsibility for his vote...

and has been working to make amends ever since, more so than any other candidate, and arguably more than anyone else because he's put forth the effort to come up with a viable plan to allow a responsible withdrawal of our troops from Iraq; has visited Iraq more than any other candidate (and perhaps more than any other legislator); has argued passionately for better protection and armored vehicles for our troops; has a son who will soon be deployed to Iraq; and is running for president in large part to clear up the mess that his vote, a vote that he and other were tricked into making, enabled. No other candidate is doing more to right the wrong in Iraq, including the one Democratic candidate who voted against it, Dennis Kucinich. Obama is conveniently touting the fact that he didn't vote for the IWR, but I question his honesty on this point. I have little doubt that he, too, would have taken the bait had he been a senator at the time, in part, because of his political ambitions.

[Dems Will Win]

70. Hey wait a minute! I thought Obama wanted to be President from Kindergarten

Now he had no Presidential ambitions in 2002? He at least had Senatorial ambitions.

[ginchinchili]

74. I missed something here.

I have no idea when Obama's presidential ambitions began nor do I care. What I stated was that I believe he would have most likely voted in favor of the IWR in part because of his political ambitions. I don't see any history of Obama's willingness to take huge political risks. But it's like his not attending the vote on the Iran resolution. He played it safe then wants it both ways. If it was important enough for him to hound Hillary about, then it was important enough for him to show up for. Otherwise, he loses his moral authority on the issue.

[Beacool]

73. Nope, I lay the blame on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

If you feel better by blaming the Democrats in Congress, then go for it.

As for Obama, I don't give a rat's rear end what he had to say from his seat in the state legislature. When he actually made it to the US senate his voting record parallels, with few exceptions, that of Hillary's.

The only one of the presidentials who actually voted against the resolution is Kucinich.