If Gore, Clark, Obama had been in the Senate all 3 would have voted FOR IWR

[Proud2BAmurkin]

I'm for Gore right now. But I think any of these "anti-war" candidates would have voted FOR the IWR just like Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards did at the time.

Anyone who gives them extra brownie points because they claim they wouldn't have is a fool.

By the same token Gore, Kerry, Clinton, and probably Edwards would NOT have invaded Iraq if they were president at the time Idiot Son was.

I'll support any of the current candidates who is nominated against any filthy RePUKE and I won't hold IWR against them.

[BootinUp]

1. Do you work for psychic hotline?

sorry, I am in a grumpy mood. :)

[NoodleBoy]

2. proof?

That's funny, since Gore's chance to become President was blown to pieces when Kerry, Daschle, Gephardt et al blasted him for coming out hard against the war.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. Well you know as well as I do there's no proof because THEY WEREN'T IN THE SENATE

but an educated guess

[NYCGirl]

8. Both Gore and Obama made very public speeches against the war before it

began. It's not like they said recently that they wouldn't have voted for it.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. I know but that was a lot easier for an outsider than someone in the Senate at the time

it was either advantageous positioning in case the war went south or no consequence at all if it didn't

[NYCGirl]

22. Then why was he attacked by other Democrats who voted for the IWR?

No consequence? If it didn't he would've looked like a fool — that's the chance you take for standing by your convictions.

[illinoisprogressive]

34. Also, at the time Obama made his public speech he was gearing up to run for senate

and given bush's popularity and the war drums,. being anti war was not a good stand to make, especially when getting ready to announce for running for the US Senate

[NoodleBoy]

9. you could point to articles where they said they would vote for it

then your guess would be the most educated.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. those would only be meaningful if they were in the Senate at the time nt

nt

[NoodleBoy]

27. so basically we can't trust anything a candidate ever says because they're not elected at the time

nice

[Proud2BAmurkin]

31. You know ALL candidates will compromise. Impossible to say WHEN they will, and in Nov 02......

in that 02 election the RePUKES had the democrats over a barrel where if they voted against IWR they would have had bigger losses in both houses most likely.

[NoodleBoy]

35. yeah they totally had us over a barrell, that's why we lost 50 Senate seats and

200+ house seats because back then there was a crazy reality warp where everything Republicans said was true and no amount of conviction or experience could make a Democrat believe otherwise.

[Quixote1818]

4. You are probably right

Everyone was afraid to look weak at the time. At least Clark spoke up against going to war before it started though. He might have voted to put pressure on Saddam but Clark made it clear that he thought attacking Iraq was very risky and probably not a good idea.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. What's more I can't say it was the wrong thing for Democrats to do at the time if...

if it meant that our losses that cycle would have been bigger which I think they WOULD HAVE if most democrats opposed IWR.

[NYCGirl]

14. As did Gore (who said the war was DEFINITELY wrong) and Obama. NT

[rebel with a cause]

32. Obama spoke out against the war also,

and our other Illinois Senator (Dick Durbin) voted against the measure. Obama would have went the way of Durbin.

[evlbstrd]

5. Transcript of Al Gore's Speech "Iraq and the War On Terrorism"

September 23, 2002.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

[Proud2BAmurkin]

7. That's not the same as what he would do if he was a senator from Tennessee

that's the issue

[evlbstrd]

17. All I've got is what he said.

And, no, I don't think he would have voted for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Well, ALL WE HAVE is WHAT HE SAID AT THE TIME.

At least he had the courage to speak out with what was an unpopular viewpoint. At that point, people still considered him as a possible candidate in 2004- the same political calculations that you think would have implied a vote for the IWR in the senate could have forced Gore to not take that stand. Or to not endorse Howard Dean, when he made it clear he himself wasn't running.

He did all these things, not because they were politically expedient, but because they were right. I don't think ANYONE can ask more of the guy than that.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

26. What he said was awesome but I think it might have been different if he was up for election in 02.

in tennessee. just my .02

[NYCGirl]

29. Or whether he was running for president in '04, which he considered doing. NT

[AlGore-08.com]

42. Gore was the front runner for 2004 and actively running when he first opposed the invasion

Back in September 2002. He had an awful lot to loose - - opposing a (then) popular war was far from a "safe" position for him to take.

[NYCGirl]

44. Thank you — the OP thinks Gore had nothing to lose from speaking out. NT

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Most DUers don't know what the IWR even said.

I think they'd be surprised to learn it wasn't a yes or no on invading Iraq.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

12. It was leverage not a vote "for the war." that's a rePUKE talking point.

and an opportunistic democrat talking point.

[Horse with no Name]

11. Not sure I agree

BUT I do know one thing...it is offensive that any of them can sit back and say they would have voted against it.
They weren't in the position to do so and we really have no way of knowing--you know that hind sight is 20/20 thing just happens to come to mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. How is it offensive, if that person was speaking out against it at the time?

What the hell more were they supposed to do? I don't know how anyone can have any more 'cred' on the issue than that.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Because I have heard Congress people

speak out about something and then turn around and vote for it.
The SCOTUS nominations are a perfect example.
I am not dissing them...but unless they were in that position voting, I don't feel they should sit and say HOW they would have voted because we simply do not know.
And hey--2 of the 3 folks in the OP are ones I would run to the polls to vote for...so it has nothing to do with it being my candidate or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. That's speculation, pure and simple.

You might be right, you might be wrong. For Gore, the ONLY record we have to go on is what he said at the time, and what he's said since. Judging by his clarity on the matter, I have to believe he would have voted "No". It's worth remembering that MANY Brave Senators (Boxer, Feingold, etc.) did so.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

20. It is speculation. But not fair to compare them with sitting senators who also had to be

politicians and weigh compromises, yes, compromises.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I think it's perfectly fair. As I said, many of our Senators were brave enough to vote "no".

And like it or not, the ones who voted yes- who were in the Senate when the vote came up- have to explain that vote.

[OHdem10]

18. I do not believe Gore or Clark

would have voted for the war. Gore always had a
way of being his own person on war issues.
He was the only Democrat to vote with Senior Bush
for Gulf War becaused he believed the issue was
the right one. He spoke out against the war
very early on thoroughly making his case.
Gore would have gone along with the war in Afganistan
not Iraq. I could be wrong but do not believe so.

General Clark got thrown off CNN for few days
for being against the war just as the war started.


I cannot speak for Obama.

When it is time to vote, I think we will all cast
a vote for the party candidate.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. My point is not to give too much credit to the non senators or too much blame to the ones who were

since there's no way of knowing how they would compare to each other if situations were reversed.

[sandnsea]

25. Well Dean & Clark would have

Dean with his give 'em 60 days and invade, and Clark with his testimony that recommended the resolution in the first place. Obama would not have voted for it. Gore, it's tough to say, but I lean no due to his stated objection to the pre-emptive Bush Doctrine. The only ones who might have invaded are Hillary and Edwards, get me evidence that they opposed the invasion at the time. I recall Edwards making Dean apologize because Dean said he was flip-flopping on his war support.

That's what I hold against any given candidate, what they did and said after it was clear Bush was going to go forward with his invasion and what they did and said when it was clear he had lied. 5 people have a relatively consistent stand on Iraq - and sadly none of them are running.

I like Obama, but he needs to get clearly behind a plan to get out.

[rebel with a cause]

30. Obama would not have, and how do I know?

Because Durbin (his fellow Illinois Senator) did not, and they are pretty close in how they vote.

Edited to add, Also because he had spoke out against the plan before the vote.

[illinoisprogressive]

33. You are the fool. Watch the Nov. 2002 interview on a chicago station re: Obama's take on the war

Not only did he denounce it he also predicted everything that has come to pass.
My other senator, Durbin, voted no as well.

[XOKCowboy]

36. I happen to agree with the OP but there is ONE thing we can ALL agree on..

The blood of the dead in Iraq are NOT on the following people's hands:

Senators who voted against H.J.Res. 114 in Oct 2002. (Iraqi War Resolution)


Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

House of Representative members who voted against H.J.Res. 114

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
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 (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Wu

[Proud2BAmurkin]

37. hear hear nt

nt

[rebel with a cause]

39. My representative voted against it also.

And he made a speech from the floor that other day against bush and his "surge" escalation into Iraq. Costello, Durbin and Obama. I am proud of who represents me in Congress.

[Breeze54]

38. Kucinich did NOT vote for the IWR!

Dennis Kucinich for President 2008, read about his policies and Congressional track record.
Vote for Congressman Kucinich in 2008 for peace and justice.

Kucinich for President 2008
http://kucinich.us/

Pre-Iraq-war documents reveal Kucinich analysis accurately predicted subsequent events
Submitted by Webmaster on Thu, 2007-03-08 17:37. Iraq

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
Thursday, March 8, 2007

CLEVELAND OH –

An October 2002 pre-Iraq-war analysis of intelligence and information by Ohio Congressman Dennis
Kucinich that was widely circulated to members of Congress accurately predicted subsequent events,
discoveries, and consequences, according to documents released today by the Kucinich for President
Campaign.

Among the points raised by Kucinich in his Oct. 2, 2002 analysis of the war-authorization resolution http://kucinich.us/files/pdfs/Oct2002Analysis.pdf , which he presented to members of the House and
the Senate eight days before they voted to give President Bush the war-authorization he sought,

Kucinich advised his colleagues:

"This language is so broad that it would allow the President to order an attack
against Iraq even when there is no material threat to the United States."

[Strawman]

40. I suspect you're right

And I don't give that much credit to risk-free opposition, or apologies for votes. Every one of them has a record of waffling somewhat in their political careers on issues of principle when their own asses were on the line. I can't say anything one way or another about Clark who hasn't left the same political tracks as the others, but I don't find him to be a very compelling candidate for other reasons.

I dunno maybe Al Gore has been liberated by his time away from Washington. But even him, put him back there and how much different is he really from any of the rest? More experienced than some of the others? Sure. But in terms of what is President Gore (or any of them) going to get accomplished in office in comparison to the others, it's not all that different.

Some have called your post speculation. OK. Maybe, but I think it also contains a healthy dose of skepticism.

[w13rd0]

41. What kinda clairvoyant cap are you wearing?

I'll hold the IWR against whomever I choose, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for them, just means I wouldn't be so certain of their judgement. As for Gore, Clark and Obama, bullshit. To say all three of them would have, maybe one of them (and I don't know which one, so stop the pointless speculation), but not all three...

[jmowreader]

43. The IWR we were sold wasn't the IWR we got

The IWR we were sold gave Bush permission to wage war as a last resort.

I say again: as a last resort. If Saddam wasn't cooperating. If there really were WMD. If Saddam The Evil Nuklur-Armed Fucker described to the UN actually existed in Iraq.

The problem is, once he got permission to wage this last-resort war, he did what people in the Addict-Rescuing Business call "raising the bottom." He even went out of his way to find a bottom to raise because one didn't actually exist in Iraq at the time. He claimed the Iraqis weren't being cooperative on allowing inspectors even as the inspectors were doing everything possible TO be cooperative. He claimed we were finding WMDs when what we WERE finding were empty shell casings left out in the desert and Saddam's personal copy of "1001 Fiendish Plans." We went to war not only on lies told before the IWR vote was cast, but after.

And the best one was the released NSA transcript from the unit being inspected in which the commander sent one of his subordinates to check to make sure they didn't have any WMDs. Bush used this as proof there were WMDs in Iraq. Hey, I've been in the Army too, and y'know what? When an external inspector comes in to inspect, you make final checks before the inspector gets there. You do this when the guy is going to look at your troops' sock drawers; you KNOW you're gonna do it when the consequences of failing inspection include having the 82nd Airborne landing at your airfield.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Kucinich didn't vote for the war, neither did 23 senators. I think Gore wouldn't have.

As for the senators who did, I have no sympathy. They can't have it both ways. They were either too stupid to see what almost everyone else on the planet could see, or they were acting purely for political expediency. Which calls into question their fitness to hold public office.

[mdmc]

46. yes true

Only DK saw it for what it was...