Were you FOR or AGAINST the war?

[newsguyatl]

i thought being at DEMOCRATic underground, i knew the answer to this. but after seeing so many here defend war votes (and would-be war votes) i'm just curious.

[Melinda]

1. newsguy, why?

I'm sad to see that you felt it necessary to list #3. Damn.

[rbnyc]

2. Please edit your subject line...

...Were, not where. Thanks.

On Edit: I can't believe that's the part I'm worried about. ;-)

[Terwilliger]

3. heh!

you beat me to it, but I figured I wouldnt post it...he'd figure it out :D

[ronnykmarshall]

60. Hey, hey Rene!

How you doin' today????

So glad to see you on line!

[utopian]

4. Let's not confuse

Supportintg the war with supporting a candidate who supported the war.

If the eventual democratic nominee supported the war then so be it. I won't like it, but it's imperative that we throw the fascists out as soon as we get the chance.

[Terwilliger]

7. the fascists?

You do realize that you alienate independents and swing voters by characterizing Bush and Co. as fascist, right? You'll never get him out that way :eyes:

[arcane1]

10. lol

:silly:

[Clete]

12. They are fascists.

Saying it isn't so, doesn't make it untrue. If independents and swing voters can't handle the truth, then yes we are damned but it doesn't change the fact it is the truth.

[Terwilliger]

14. OH ok

so I dont have to worry about alienating them with my leftist ways, right?

[Clete]

16. It's up to you who you want to alienate.

You have been a roaring success alientating me though. Keep up the good work and see how many others you can win over to the other side.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clete]

40. Don't lower yourself to those kind of attacks.

This isn't personal. It's about what we believe in. It's about the differences that we are trying to discuss, preferably without rancor.

[WilliamPitt]

57. You're really a victim these days, aren't you?

[Terwilliger]

63. Victim of my own victimhood, yes

Just like the Democratic party, apparently

[Paschall]

44. Characterizing ShrubCo as fascist

You better take your complaint to Molly Ivins, too. She characterized ShrubCo as fascist months ago.

[Terwilliger]

62. Molly Ivins is a liberal

She actually believes in left values

[glarius]

28. Do you think most of the Democrats who voted for the war were almost

forced into it against their will because they were painted as un-American and unpatriotic if they didn't?...The way Bush manipulated the whole situation before the war they didn't have much choice???....I'm asking as a non-American, watching this from afar...But that's kind of the impression I got.

[Clete]

39. Sorry, Glarius.

I don't think anyone was forced by anything but a view to their careers. Maybe in the future they might have more to fear. IMHO

[Skittles]

42. F*** THAT SH**

they voted AGAINST THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They didn't have a CHOICE? LIKE F***ING HELL THEY DIDN'T.

[Terwilliger]

5. LOL

"whatever Clark thinks" and there are two replies!!! Sheesh!

[LWolf]

52. Now there are 12 ???

I guess we should't criticize the folks who support * no matter what he says, thinks, does.....once you've decided to support someone, you don't question, right?

Right?

[JanMichael]

6. I protested in Sarasota, Tampa & DC.

I was, and still am, very much against the Big Lie Invasion.

[liberalnurse]

8. I was against the war

pending sufficient evidence of a impending and immanent threat to the U.S.. There was world protest as well as within America. The inspectors were doing their job, Saddam well contained. I can clearly recall the anti-war advocates such as Mike Farrell, Jessica Lang etc...speaking out, begging this administration to be cautious. They were mocked and riddiculed!

Another front runner who's message made a serious impact on my red light view was Scott Ritter's vocal clarification that he did his job as Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq until 1998, the arsenal had been successfuly depleated. He has taken a blistering for his stance, I wish to thank him for his sacrifice.

*bush was in a rush, not doubt about it. And of course, the first turf to be secured were the oil wells. Their eye was definately on the prize.

[sweetheart]

9. against wars, all of them

wrong mentality... deficient sick people... war. not a healthy nation at all... at all.

[Clete]

11. It never made sense to me to invade Iraq.

Why Iraq and not some other nation believed to have WMD's? And if this were the reason, wouldn't diplomacy be a more prudent way to deal with this? We all knew the stink of oil and enrichment of the Reich was at the bottom of this.

[sujan]

13. fuck war profiteering

[roughsatori]

20. Ditto

I never use that kind of language, so is my ditto a way of using you to use the F-word vicariously? I agree with you completely--all 6 syllables of shared anger.

[WillyBrandt]

15. I was for the war

I was for the war because I actually believed--from reading some non GOP material--that Saddam Hussein could pose a nuclear threat. I thought (like Paul Berman, an excellent very liberal writer) that Bush is worthless, but he's right about Saddam.

Needless to say Bush is worthless and lied about everything. I feel anger at them for taking this country into disaster. And for myself for believing their lies--lies which cost a lot of folks their lives. The stupidest belief I've ever had was thinking this war was perhaps necessary, perhaps something more than a fraud.

I can probably recite the pro and con arguments better than anyone here. But it doesn't matter: I was on the wrong side and lots of people are dead.

[JanMichael]

17. You're a bigger Person than Bush or his handlers.

Admitting one was mis-taken on such an huge issue is admirable.

Interesting handle why WillyBrandt?

PS: Welcome to DU!!!!:hi:

[WillyBrandt]

22. Willy

I lived in Germany for a little while, and WillyBrandt is as good as any :)

As for a being liberal for the war--well, there's nothing as intoxicating as a stupid idea.

I might have been right if Saddam did have a nuclear program, but it doesn't matter. All I can do to repent is try to get Bush out, and somebody sane in. (Hint: Go Clark!)

[roughsatori]

23. It is amazing and inspiring to read a person say they were wrong

I have a hard time doing that. It is a definite sign of character to be able to do as you have done. :)

[WillyBrandt]

26. While I've got your attention

. . . vote Clark 2004! :)

[Patriot_Spear]

29. ...geez.

n/t

[WillyBrandt]

31. C'mon

... have a sense of humor! :)

[Patriot_Spear]

32. That WAS me being funny.

Damn Clark! ...lol, just kidding. I like them all.

[WillyBrandt]

33. Agreed

I like them all, too. And I plan to campaign hard to make sure Dean is Clark's VP :)

[Patriot_Spear]

35. You're kidding, but I think they've already worked that out...

They had a meeting last weekend, in my opinion for that very purpose. I think they've got an arrangement to be the VP for each others race in order to sweep their individual camps into one.

[roughsatori]

34. Well I don't admire what you've done enough to vote for Clark

But if he should win, and not turn out to be as awful as I have said I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.

[WillyBrandt]

41. Fair enough

... but wait until after some Dem debates. You'll see. :)

[Darranar]

49. You know what?

I believed them, too.

NEVER AGAIN. I've learned my lesson.

[WillyBrandt]

56. I'm glad I'm not the only one

At the time it didn't seem so impossible that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons. He HAD been seeking them prior. Fucking bastards...

[Patriot_Spear]

18. Wars are a failure of leadership, that being said...

Some things cannot be avoided and once someone crosses your borders the decision is beyond debate.

However this Bush* fiasco in Iraq does not meet this criterea.

[Athame]

24. It does for the Iraqis... n/t

[Patriot_Spear]

27. Excellent point!

I've said from the beginning that this Bush* War did something that the Japanese had been unable to do for themselves in 50 years- and that is to make Pearl Harbor into a justifiable military action.

Pre-emptive war? Madness.

[punpirate]

21. I was kind of disappointed to see...

... there was no category saying "I think the _invasion_ was a total friggin' con job, and thought so long before it began."

Cheers.

[buddhamama]

25. against

[Toby109]

30. Against

I saved an email I sent to Tweety in April 2002-even he was anti-war then.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. I'd be against any war these fucking bastards started

There was never a doubt that they lied about Iraq from day one. Now it seems Afghanistan was more about the UNOCAL pipeline (and punishing the Taliban for not building it) than it ever was about Al Qaeda. Nobody can prove, in fact, that Bin Laden was even there in October 01 when the invasion began.

[Eloriel]

37. I can't think of anything I've ever been so thoroughly,

completely, deep-down-in-my-soul against. I consider any vote FOR the Iraq War Resolution (except Congressman Murcha's, since he has now admitted he was wrong) as a personal betrayal, at a soul level. They also betrayed and besmirched my country.

Eloriel

[sangha]

61. Murtha is lucky he;s not in jail

over Abscam

[Iverson]

38. protested, wrote letters, did teach-in ...

... argued before the city commission, spoke to people one-on-one, went to candlelight vigils once it started, gnashed my teeth on DU, and so on. However, I'm not a member of the party you capitalized. Apparently, I'm unacceptably far left.

[KaraokeKarlton]

43. You left out neither as a choice

I wasn't either for or against it. I was for the first one and going to Afghanistan, but I really didn't have much of an opinion either way about going into Iraq this time. I didn't perceive Iraq as a threat, but did perceive Saddam as a major asshole. I'm glad he's gone but would have preferred we didn't go mainly because it's costing so much and there was no solid plan in place to prevent another Somalia political situation.

[Piperay]

65. I am in TOTAL agreement

with you. I can't say I was really for or against war with Iraq, because the real reasons were never presented. I may have been in favor if I honestly believed that Saddam was a threat but I suspected (and have been proven correct) that it was all about chimps avenging pappy's honor and the oil.


It is not as simple as "for or against or whatever Clark thinks", bah. :argh:


EDIT: spelling

[Paschall]

45. Against. And I always try to remember to call it an *invasion.* (eom)

[matcom]

46. considering I HAULLED MY ASS TO DC.....

and marched with about 200,000 other 'patriots' including many other DUers......

against.

[sandnsea]

47. For understanding complicated issues

That's what I'm for. Nobody seems to want to admit that you can't support lifting the sanctions, containing Saddam, and dealing with the facts on the WMD all at the same time. And nobody seems to care that if we'd just let Saddam go on his merry way in 1991 or 2002 we could be talking about a much more frightening situation than what we have in Iraq today. No, it's a hell of alot more fun to toot your horn and pretend that the world is a rosy place and that the only person who is evil is George Bush. George Bush pushing and lying us into a war was wrong, but doing nothing about Saddam would have been wrong too. And this isn't an either/or question, it's a complicated question which is why I understand those that voted for the resolution in hopes that the sanctions and containment that was hurting the Iraqi people could be resolved. This probably wasn't the right time to do it, Bush's war certainly wasn't the right way to do it, but we would have had to face it sooner or later. And a threat of military action would still be necessary.

[HazMat]

67. stop it -- you're making too much sense

don't you know we're all supposed to think like George W. Bush and Howard Dean -- in black/white, with us/against us, yes/no terms ?

Nuances ? Complex solutions for complex problems ? Dealing with reality instead of utopian scenarios ? Surely you must must be one of them "wafflers". :)

[dudeness]

48. wars are always fought in the interests

of the elite classes..this one was no different

[HPLeft]

50. The War on Terror is a War of Ideas

You can't win a war of ideas when world opinion is dramatically against you, and when opinion in the Muslim world, in the very community where the people who want to kill Americans come from, is even more so.

Of course, you especially can't win a war of ideas when you have an idiot as President.

There was a very real case to be made for removing Hussein, and that case was based on his Crimes Against Humanity. Had Bush worked with allies, and formally brought charges against Hussein, it might have been a different story. Bush and Blair could have brought a large cross-section of the victims and families of Hussein's brutality onto to the world stage, and galvanized world opinion, and Muslim opinion, that such brutality is no longer acceptable. They could have forged a new international consensus that it was time to start holding scum like Hussein accountable for their murderous behavior, and to send a message to thugs everywhere that humanity planned to hold governments accountable in this new millenium. Bush didn't use that approach, largely because he has no interest in ideas, and his neo-con advisors have nothing but contempt for world opinion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

51. That is one eloquent editorial for Kerry on your website

I suggest all DU'ers read this

[LWolf]

53. Absolutely against.

Participated in 2 demonstrations.

Still against.

[Tracer]

54. The word that sprang into my mind last August ...

... was "CONCOCTED!".

I thought then that the Bushies were concocting the whole thing, and unfortunately, I've been proven right.

[Raenelle]

55. I guess you mean the war in Iraq. It might be different for Afghanistan.

I oppose war, period. But even I didn't expect Gandhian anti-war protests about attacking Afghanistan.

We keep forgetting about Afghanistan. Most Dems, most people, and most of the world supported that war. Iraq is the controversial one--the one most Dems, half the US, and the rest of the world looked at from the beginning and just said WTF?

Another morph? Like Osama morphed into Saddam? Now THE war is that in Iraq?

[eauclaireliberal]

58. I supported Gulf War 1

Because the Butcher of Baghdad invaded and occupied the soverign nation of Kuwait. At that time, it was the right thing to do. Back then we had worldwide support. But hey-the GOP's hand must of got stuck in the War-profiteering cookie jar, for our troops-probably under GAO orders-stopped at the Euphrates river, leaving Hussein to take his revenge on the Kurds.

[shimmergal]

59. Against the war from the first.

Even though I agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, and thought he might possibly have some biological or chemical weapons.

But-- The Bush family pulled off two successful coups in the U.S. (1980 with Poppy's "October Surprise" setup) and 2000 (which we all know about.) Plus who knows how many they've arranged in other countries. If they'd really WANTED regime change in Iraq without a war they could have made it happen. The way Saddam is still at large confirms this in my mind. They WANTED a war, because everything else could have been accomplished by other means. Kennedy's wag the dog comments basically say this too.

As for biol/chem weapons: isn't it a matter of definition? Hell, tear gas is a chemical weapon. Pepper spray. You name it . . .
Now we see the Bushies are parsing words furiously. I suspected that they were doing it way back then, with this issue.

On the Democrats who voted for the resolution. I wish they hadn't.
Still, it was pretty clear to me that Smirk's administration was going to start a war in Iraq, with OR without either a Congressional resolution or UN approval. So it's hard to blame them (Dems voting yes) totally. I wish one of them would just come out and SAY this.

[HydroAddict]

64. Need another category...waffler

I've always been distrustful of the mis-administration (and against war, I never trust ANYONE who takes orders directly from "gawd"), but Colin's speech to the UN caused me to waffle a bit, esp. regarding the nukes.

A few days later, I happened upon a link to DU, and learned some truth. Since then I've boycotted network news and I haven't waffled again, much to the chagrin of ALL my friends and family (via my vocal opposition, some still won't talk to me, others have come/or are coming around).

I've also become a LIHOP believer (well 95% sure anyways, still waiting for a deep-throat).

AGAINST

[VOX]

66. Foursquare against.

I saved a copy of an e-mail I sent to my senator back on 7/30/2002

Dear Senator Feinstein:

It is my understanding that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding hearings this week to determine whether a military campaign will be waged against Iraq. These hearings may be the last chance for a considered, thorough national dialogue on the consequences of waging such an ill-advised military campaign in the Middle East. Some pertinent questions come immediately to the fore:

Does absolute, concrete evidence exist that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction?

If the decision is made to deploy American troops to Iraq, does a clear objective exist? If we go in, can we get out?

It is a matter of record that, with the exception of Great Britain, our allies do not support such an action. Why is this?

To what extent will American lives put in harm's way, to perhaps die in such an action? What of the lives of Iraqis and innocent civilians?

How much money and materiel would such a war cost?

Why is America contemplating such an irreversible undertaking without any apparent explicit provocation?

As a constituent, I must express to you my fervent hope that our country does not invade Iraq.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration on this matter of extreme importance and urgency.

Sincerely,
_________________