Why do leading Democrats lie about the Iraq invasion?

[ConsAreLiars]

Poll question: Why do leading Democrats lie about the Iraq invasion?

The gang of criminals who now control the US state apparatus got there because Corporate America bought into the PNAC strategy for the expansion of multinational capitalism throughout the middle east and beyond, and making the people and natural resources of that area subservient parts of the global economy.

They laid out their plans and strategy clearly for all to read, and signed their names to that plan long before the election of 2000. Yet, with very few exceptions, Democrats talk about that brutal invasion only in the language of the PNAC cabal. You know: "Spreading 'democracy' - is it working in Iraq?" Fighting 'terrorism' - does this war help?" "War would have been good policy but there were no WMD."

Gore (when running), Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Murtha, Dean, Edwards -- name your favorite. They talk about the pros and cons of the Cons' talking points, but they effectively conceal the real truth.

1. One possibility is they are truly ignorant of the strategy behind the invasion.

2. A second is that they are truly indifferent; they don't care, and just say whatever they think will get them votes or money.

3. Another is that they know but are truly afraid of challenging the corporate interests that backed the PNAC plan.

4. A fourth is that they agree with the PNAC strategy but only object to the failures.

5. A fifth is that they regard it as part of their role in politics to keep the American people from understanding how things work; that this deception is a good thing that is needed to keep American capitalism working.

Why do leading Democrats lie about the Iraq invasion?
(edit - added missing words to #4)

[yurbud]

1. I wrote Ray McGovern about an angle on this--

did those in Congress really believe Saddam was some kind of threat (which would mean alzheimer's about the Cold War when we faced an enemy with as many or more nukes than us who didn't dare pull the trigger), were they lying out of fear, or did they agree with the goals.

I don't have the email with me, but if I remember correctly, he didn't allow for very many in the gullible column.

[upi402]

2. show me the money n/t

[sandnsea]

3. They listened to Scott Ritter

who said Saddam would have his bio-chem productions up and running within 6 months of the inspectors leaving Iraq.

Just another possibility. In the off chance that you care about the WHOLE truth, which I doubt.

[bvar22]

6. Link please

for your Scott Ritter quote.

[blm]

11. It was in his 1998 testimony to a Senate hearing on Iraq.

Seems people forget that. In 2002, Democrats wanted inspectors back in and military action ONLY if it proved to be needed.

Name one Democrat who would have invaded Iraq after weapons inspectors reported for two months that there were no WMDS.

Not even Lieberman would have done that as president, just as Clinton declined to invade in 1998.

[Terran1212]

12. Almost all of them

[blm]

19. No way. Not after weapons inspections for two months came up with nothing

In fact, the weapons inspectors would have been able to continue and not shut down. Many Dem senators who voted for IWR still urged for Bush not to invade and to let weapons inspectors continue.

[Terran1212]

58. And most of them still dont' regret voting for the war -- what about them?

[radio4progressives]

40. Clinton didn't invade, but he bombed the hell out of the facilities,

at least he hoped "we hit our targets", as he stated recently at an event where he was a key note speaker. and went on to say, that we could never find out, because after the bombings - we couldn't get our inspectors back in to check..

Scott Ritter was right when he testified before congress, but that was before we bombed the hell out the sites in question.

[blm]

57. And the only way to make certain those targets took out the WMDs was to

put the weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq FIRST to make their assessment BEFORE any military action is relied upon, as per the IWR.

Bush VIOLATED the IWR.

[ConsAreLiars]

7. Link?

I seem to recall he said something like that several years before the invasion, not during the run-up to this war. Of course I might be wrong. I'd appreciate some reference to that quote, "In the off chance that you care about the WHOLE truth."

[ProSense]

15. He resigned because of that belief

http://www.house.gov/hasc/testimony/105thcongress/98-09-16ritter.PDF

[ConsAreLiars]

18. Right, it had no bearing on his beliefs about this invasion.

Which, as a matter of fact, he strongly opposed.

[ProSense]

22. He was in a position to know and

and he upheld the belief that Iraq still had WMD.

The reality is Iraq is winning its bid to retain it's prohibited weapons...Iraq is not disarmed. Iraq still poses a meaningful threat to its neighbors....

[ConsAreLiars]

25. Pretending that a statement made in 1998 describes

his views about the invasion is dishonest, at best. That is the same crap that the right uses all the time, and you should know better. What Ritter ACTUALLY said about the justification for the impending slaughter of Iraqis was just the opposite, as you certainly know.

[ProSense]

28. No one said he supported the invasion. He asserted they had WMD.

I leave twisting shit up to other people.

[ConsAreLiars]

31. No he did not say that

Your "twisting shit" will not turn his statement of 1998 into his statement from 2002: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

"These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 to 95 percent level," he said.

[EFerrari]

49. No. That's flat out wrong. n/t

[sandnsea]

17. So we just use run-up to the war intelligence?

We skip everything that has been said previously? If that's the case, then using the CIA NIE from 2002 was perfectly reasonable and perhaps THAT would be what Democrats were listening to. Or maybe they heard Scott Ritter on Donahue where he said he couldn't guarantee Saddam didn't have WMD, sorry no link for that, HEARD IT WITH MY OWN EARS. Or maybe they listened to EVERYTHING Wes Clark said in his 2002 testimony. Or maybe they listened to Howard Dean who said give Saddam 60 days and then invade.

Whole host of possibilities, since this is about truth and lies and all.

[ConsAreLiars]

26. What Ritter actually said was the opposite of what you claimed.

I'll provide a link, in case the facts actually matter to you. This was September 2002, not some statement about what he saw happening in 1998 that through the sort of magical thinking the Mehlman's and Roves rely on becomes timeless truth appropriate for use in any context and for all time.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/

"Ritter said Sunday that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.

"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said.
"In an interview after the speech, Ritter denied allegations that the Iraqis had interfered with the inspection process."
...
"In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction but acknowledged that concerns exist about the country's weapons programs.
"These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 to 95 percent level," he said."

Your suggestion that the Democratic leadership chose to suppress the truth about PNAC and support the invasion because "they listened to Ritter" is shameful.

[sandnsea]

30. Congressional Testimony

Not magical thinking.

SEN. BROWNBACK: What's your opinion about that continuation of their weapons-of-mass-destruction program today?

MR. RITTER: They're -- Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.

http://www.ceip.org/Programs/npp/ritter.htm

What is shameful is the way Scott Ritter has danced around his original words in 1998 along with so many others who played word games in 2002.

[ConsAreLiars]

34. Incredible!

You still say what he said about the reasons the US should NOT terminate inspections in 1998 somehow "equals" justification for supporting the invasion. Strange. Very strange.

I understand how some people wanted to slaughter as many Iraqi innocents as possible, for the greater good or whatever, but trying to bring Ritter onto your side is just wierd.

[sandnsea]

36. Supporting inspections is the point

You twist a policy to support inspections, based in part on the statements of people like Scott Ritter, into desiring the slaughter of Iraqis.

That's the lie and it's a vicious and sick thing to say.

[bpilgrim]

37. the inspectors were allowed in, bush invaded ILLEGALLY, why won't they say

it :shrug:

fyi: Scott was saying something very different by 2003, hello...

peace

[ConsAreLiars]

39. Now you want to characterize the invasion

as "a policy to support inspections" -- that is truly a "sick thing to say."

Admit it, your contention that Dems who supported the invasion "listened to Scott Ritter" was a blatant misrepresentation. You should admit this.

He did not support the invasion. Anyone, like you, who suggests that his words about the need for continued inspections in 1998 should be taken to mean that he thought and said in 2002-2003 that Iraq posed any kind of threat to the US and thus justified Dem support -- well, either your agenda is so overpowering that you cannot think straight, or you are deliberately deceptive.

In either case, your wish to justify leading Democrat's support for the slaughter in Iraq is not based in any reality that includes Ritter's actual statements. Why you support leading Dem's failure to explain or denounce the reasons behind the war is your own business, I guess, if you choose not to explain it, but using Ritter to explain your position is simply bizarre.

[ProSense]

41. Leading Dems did not support war.

There are statements showing that not to be the case.

Take Ritter's statement below and compare it to what he said in his 1998 statement. Disconnect?

There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

If Iraq were producing weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

(A)s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.

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

Ritter didn't want war for whatever reason. Based on his statements and others the Democrats wanted the inspections to continue.

[sandnsea]

42. Your OP says lying about the invasion

and why Dems aren't telling the PNAC truth about it. That's what you asked and that's what I answered. There was more going on with Iraq and the WMD then just PNAC and Scott Ritter was smack in the middle of it and he put himself there with his own statements about Saddam's WMD intentions. I never said he supported the invasion, but his professional opinion regarding Saddam's WMD intentions is still real and responsible people can't just ignore Congressional Testimony.

By the time Bush started this war, every Democrat, except Lieberman, supported letting the inspections continue. Even Lieberman supported getting a second UN resolution. No Democrat supported slaughter of Iraqi's for the pure pleasure of slaughtering people and it is really a sick and demented thing to say.

[ConsAreLiars]

43. Your OP claims "They listened to Scott Ritter"

A blatant lie. If they had listened to Ritter they would have voted against the slaughter in Iraq. Why you want to claim they "listened to Scott Ritter" is impossible for me to understand. He argued strongly - very strongly - against the invasion. And suggesting that voting to authorize that slaughter was somehow caused by what Ritter said is delusional, at the very best.

Now you say that the Iraq War Resolution was somehow a vote to continue inspections and not a vote to authorize war. Well, OK. I guess 99% of the Republicans voted that way because they wanted to prevent the war also. Okey Dokey. Have it your way.

But the main topic, somehow lost in this mess of false accusations against Ritter, was this: Why do they continue to lie (hide, ignore, cover up) the fact that butchering a few hundred thousand men, women, and children in Iraq was the consequence of a plan for world domination by the use of US military power in Irag. Why do they not point out that this plan was spelled out in full detail in the PNAC papers, and signed onto by 75% of the top officials in this government.

Why do they lie? Tell me. And don't keep saying that "Scott Ritter made them do it." That is obviously a lie.

[sandnsea]

44. The WHOLE truth

That's what I said, which is inclusive of information from 1998 on, not just your cherry-picking or Bush's cherry-picking. They are not lying, there was more information to consider than just PNAC. That's what I said. Now you can twist my words 50 ways from Sunday and I really don't care, but it isn't going to change what I said.

[ConsAreLiars]

45. Your reference to Ritter had nothing to do with

any part of the truth, much less the "WHOLE" truth. You misrepresent his views in 1998, advocating inspections, not invasion, and try to claim that the Dems who voted to kill Iraqis were relying on his words from 1998 and yet were unaware of his words in 2002-2003. Just silly.

And you ignore his strong words, months before the slaughter began, opposing the vote to murder innocents in Iraq. Bringing in a few words on another subject by Ritter in 1998 in order to excuse or justify the votes of those allied themselves with the PNAC cabal is simply silly, to be kind.

"More information to consider than just PNAC"? Huh? Why do they still continue to cover up the fact that the ONLY reason for murdering and maiming babies was the PNAC agenda. The ONLY reason. Do you not know this to be true?

Everything else, including your claim that "Ritter made them do it" was a lie. A complete fabrication. Why do you persist in claiming that Ritter's words in 1998 have anything at all to do with why the leading Democrats continue to pretend that the PNAC agenda is not the WHOLE truth of why the war was begun. Anything else, like your Ritter nonsense, is just noise.

[sandnsea]

47. I listed several points

Not just Ritter's words from 1998. ALL of it was relevant in making the decision to put inspectors back into Iraq, which ALL Democrats supported in 2002, along with the UN. That anybody supported murdering innocent Iraqis is just lucicrous and a sick and demented thing to say. That is the LIE, that is the complete fabrication.

[ConsAreLiars]

51. You claim the vote to slaughter Iraqis was actually

a vote to continue inspections? The vote with the PNAC monsters and the fascist right?

How strange you are. Your original post mentioned only Ritter(1998) as a justification. Complete BS. That was not what he said about the impending butchery. It was something he said about the need to continue inspections in 1998. And no matter what he said, nothing ever could justify the murderous war that followed that vote. The blood is there for all to see, if they have the courage to look.

But don't admit that.

Feel happy that you support that war vote, and never, never ever look at this site, that shows what that vote and your support for it means:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

[sandnsea]

52. You listed 5 reasons

that they lied. I listed one obvious reason, that they had listened to Scott Ritter's testimony in 1998, and followed it up with others.

The vote didn't distort the intelligence to justify the war, George Bush did. That is what the Downing Street Memo is all about, right? That was the summer of 2002, which shows Bush had planned to fix the intelligence to the war, without informing Congress, right?

[ConsAreLiars]

53. So you claim Ritter fooled them with his 1998 comments

(grossly misundersttod and misrepresented) about the need to continue inspections, but they never heard his very loud warnings against voting for the invasion in 2002-3? Really?

And somehow that means that their silence about PNAC is a good thing (or excusable, or praiseworthy, or what?). I think your vote should be "other," or maybe I should have added another category of "Other worldly/ delusional."

Blood. Lots of blood. On their hands, and yours. But don't worry. Be happy. They were just ignorant fools and had no clue, I guess. If that's your best case in defense of that vote, well, you didn't need to bring up some out of context misrepresentation of something Ritter said several years previously to make your case. Just say they were morons.

[sandnsea]

54. No I didn't claim that

And I didn't say they based their decisions ONLY on what Scott Ritter had to say.

But you've avoided answering whether Bush is the one who fixed the intelligence, whether he kept that from Congress, what the UN had to say, why Dean wanted to go to war in 60 days, or anything else I've presented. Because you aren't interested in the truth, like I said in the beginning. You have an agenda and the agenda is to perpetuate anger at a certain group of Dems while letting the real culprit completely off the hook. So who is the ignorant fool?

[EFerrari]

48. Scott said he could not guarantee. That's a universe away

from saying there were WMD.

And that NIE is full of clear qualifiers. No reasonable person reading it could conclude that Saddam had WMD.

[sandnsea]

50. Could not guarantee

Exactly so.

As posted above, "These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 to 95 percent level," he said.

Not completely disarmed, that is quite clear.

Yes the NIE had qualifiers, no reasonable person could conlude one way or the other on the WMD.

That's why even Dennis Kucinich supported inspectors in Iraq.

That's what Democrats voted for. NOT to murder innocent Iraqis.

[Nutmegger]

4. This is America, where it's all about the money.

Yup, it's all about the money.

[dchill]

14. It is NOT all about the money...

Send me $19.95 and I'll tell you why!

:)

[yurbud]

5. greg palast has a new column on the oil machinations

http://www.gregpalast.com/

Collection of links on oil machinations including Palast's timeline, the current deal, and history of oil:

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/12/facts-that-are-missing-from-iraq.html

[TayTay]

8. Of course there is always the sixth point:

They have spent a great deal of time investigating the issues, talking to the people involved and learning about the consequences of the actions that could be taken. They have been to Iraq, some several times, talked to the Iraqis on the ground and taken their opinions for consideration. They genuinely worry that withdrawing might mean the loss of life, and that staying there might also jeopardize life and they are genuinely concerned with who lives and who dies. Maybe they don't find the issue as black and white and simple as other people do and would like to take action that helps the situation.

Of course, these interpretation means less bashing of actual Democrats, so I guess it was left off the list because it might skewer the results. Pity.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. The question was about why they do not mention the PNAC

plan for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Your comments don't address that, and only give your justifications for continuing the occupation. If the poll were about the reasons to continue the policy of occupation, something along those lines might have been relevant, but that was not the question.

[sandnsea]

21. One person was pretty clear

One person did specifically reject the regime change policy and unilateral pre-emptive doctrine that he knew to be a serious issue with this crowd. One person was quite specific about WMD and war as a last resort. Has that mattered one iota? Oh hell no. Just like being one of the few, possibly the only one in the Senate, to confront the fact that our military has become nothing but oil cops.

Why don't they mention PNAC specifically? Because there's all kinds of think tanks and organizations pushing all kinds of agendas and they'd sound like loons picking one out of the hat, that's why. You're supposed to be sophisticated enough to know what they're talking about when they talk about unilateralism and spreading democracy at gunpoint.

[TayTay]

23. I see. So it was a rhetorical question

that you actually want answered. That makes a lot of sense.

[SPKrazy]

9. They Were Afraid Of Being Labeled "Weak" on Terror

in 2002 elections the pressure was on

popular support still reigned for Bush after 911

They were cowed into supporting the war resolution, and have been afraid to say they were wrong, or that they know any different.

Besides, as neat as the PNAC story is, it still requires a rather large conspiracy to pull off. Something that I don't think this group, or any other has the ability to really pull off.

That's not to say that there isn't a conspiracy, it is just hard for me to believe, or know exactly what to believe. (And believe me I've read everything from No HOP to MIHOP

[Danieljay]

10. 6. Because they are spineless dillweeds! DINOS! n/t

[pinto]

13. That's a pretty broad brush accusation - "leading Dems lie".

just sayin'

[ConsAreLiars]

20. Is your position that they didn't know about the PNAC plan?

Or that they actually did expose it and I just missed that bit of news?

Or that knowing and not exposing the fact that the plan to invade and occupy Iraq was laid out and signed onto by the neocons was not "really" a lie.

Not sure what you're "just sayin'."

[pinto]

27. No, my assertion is that saying they're all liars is a broad

accusation, and a generalization.

I see your points about PNAC's world view, and their influence in this administration, don't get me wrong, but to extrapolate that into some kind of intentional complicity by Democratic leaders at large seems a stretch in my opinion.


(aside) Didn't mean to sound snide with the "just sayin"...meant it to say "it's just my 2 cents".

[ConsAreLiars]

29. "Intentional complicity" was only one (or two) of the options in the poll

And you're right that "not telling the whole truth" can have reasons other than complicity. I think I lean toward #5, but "all of the above" might be more accurate. It is just so frustrating that neither side is willing to talk about what was really going on behind this vile invasion. I "get it" about why the Cons don't want to reveal their plans and strategy - it would sound to much like Hitler - but I don't know why the Democrats won't expose them. The poll (with the provacative phrasing) was an attempt to get some of other DUers views on the "why."

[pinto]

35. Yeah, there seems to be a genuine reluctance across society

to say this is a horrific mistake. Just plain and simple, administrative jingoism and global scale agendas aside. Maybe it's some national psyche thing, or something, but I honestly don't know.

I do think we're moving in that direction, though...glacially as it may seem.



(aside) I'm from the VietNam era and something that's rarely mentioned is a kind of public sadness after all was said and done. The enormous loss, the anger and the finger pointing gets press, of course, but there was a sense of something "gone very wrong" as well. It was a feeling that was hard to accept and that took a long time to put to rest.

[The2ndWheel]

24. I'd say they agree with it

Very few get to that high an office only to help. Usually it's a power trip. I don't see much in our history to suggest that either side doesn't enjoy being #1. Everything we do is always, whether you have a D or R before your name, in our "national interest".

What's that interest? To keep the economy going. How do you do that? Continuous growth. How does that happen? Constant expansion. It started on the east coast, went west, killed whoever stood in the way, finally left the borders beyond the oceans, and it hasn't stopped.

Like you said, "making the people and natural resources of that area subservient parts of the global economy." That's basically the history of civilization right there.

I don't know if they do it knowingly, or if they're just completely one with the system as to not know. But for the most part, I'd say they agree with it.

[PassingFair]

33. True Confession:

I needed to make a quick renewal sale to qualify for
a contest running at work. The sale meant the difference
between the $1,500 and $600 prize. ALL I NEEDED WAS
A $70.00 SALE! Keep this in mind when I confess my
spinelessness.

I had a plan to joke with the guy (he owns an auto shop)
about going to our biggest marketing plan, then have
a good laugh and just resign him.

When I came in the door, he told me that he actually
wanted to INCREASE his program, but he couldn't do it
RIGHT NOW. I NEEDED that sale.

I had pre-arranged that he look at my car, because
the "check engine" light had been coming on intermittently.
I have a VERY tasteful DFA bumper sticker on my car.
It is inoffensive, and doesn't normally attract any
attention.

The owner asked me for my keys, so he could go around the
block and while he was gone, I noticed that there were
several "signs" of republicanism strewn around the shop.
"Hunters for Bush", etc.; and I began to regret letting
him pull my car around, for fear he would "groc" my sticker.

Sure enough, he peeled into the shop, jumped out of my car,
came towards me saying "What's DFA stand for?" and looking
confrontational.

Now, I would like to say that I drew myself up and gave him
a lecture on the * administration and the trashing of our
constitution. I would like to say that. But that is
decidedly NOT what I said. What did I say?

"Oh, that's my Grandmother's car....." and waved my hand
as if to imply, "You know how CRAZY those old ladies can
be...".

CAVED.
IMMEDIATELY.

Now I think I know a little better why so many of our
elected representatives cave and cave and cave. You
MUST be willing to lose if you're going to take a stand.
I simply was not willing to walk away THAT DAY.

Another day, the story might have ended differently,
I have, on occasion, wrestled MIGHTILY with clients
and didn't care if they bought, or renewed, or told
me to *uck off!

So, there is my confession. I think I have a better
understanding of what is at stake for our more spineless
masters. But I still dream of Democrats who are
NOT AFRAID TO LOSE. Who will stand up to the tyrants
who are pouring our blood and money into their frantic,
insatiable mouths.

P.S.: I won the "prize". I wish I hadn't sold myself
so cheaply.

[mmonk]

32. For many, cowardice or political advantage.

Some may even be the same as PNAC. But any who promote the lies will not get my vote. They are supporting pre-emptive war at the very least which is against international law. It's in violation of all that was laid down at Nuremberg. I won't forget nor forgive.

[bush_is_wacko]

38. I hate to say I voted second to last. I have absolutely no faith left

in my government. I do believe they ALL know what is going on with regard to PNAC. I do believe they really don't care about anything but money and power and the reason I believe this is because of their SILENCE! There is no conceivable reason at this point to believe anything else.

[Hardrada]

46. And power is an aphrodisiac

so sez Henry the K.

[Disturbed]

55. Votes against the IWR

IWR

United States Senate

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

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
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)

United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Re
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)
Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina)
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)
John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee)
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)
John Hostettler (R-Indiana)
Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office)
Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

[ProSense]

56. Their votes should be respected.

And they should not be called cowards because they haven't issued public statements about censure. Harkin, for example, voted for the IWR, but is sponsoring the censure measure. On the other hand, Dayton voted against the IWR, but spoke out against censure. So are they cowardly and courageous?

[bush_is_wacko]

59. Voting against the Iraq war isn't enough IMO...

While I understand they are outnumbered by criminals right now I cannot understand why they aren't all shouting IMPEACHMENT from the rooftops. F&*K censure. This president, VP, Sec. of Defense and on down the line have committed more criminal offenses than any other president in history. They make Nixon look like a boyscout! I don't want to even mention Clinton. What a crock!

I want to see impeachment AND conviction and jail time for all of them. The silence from our guys is deafening. The only one I have seen openly discuss impeachment is Conyers. What the hell are they waiting for? Will they call for investigations, impeachment and criminal convictions if they win back a majority? Is waiting for a majority really the right thing for this country? Aren't they all going to look like cowards for keeping that under their hats for all this time?

I may disagree with freepers and thuglicans about Democratic cowardice but I certainly can understand why they say it. If it's the right thing to do it is the right thing to do whether you have a majority or not. I wish they would at least start talking about why impeachment is the right course of action!

[Toucano]

60. One component missing from all choices.

They're not exactly keeping the people ignorant, they're actually selling them a terrifying image that when purchased by the public, helps make them powerful.

It a combination, but it's not 1 or 2.