So what do we make of Chuckie Schumer and his...

[NNN0LHI]

...saying he still would have voted to give Bunker Boy authorization to invade Iraq regardless of the fact that Bush and his minions lied to him and the American people about the whole thing?

[Roxy66]

1. They are all still scared of being called weak.......WEAK!!!!!!

They will be WEAK until they have the courage to call this what it is ....TREASON!!!

[acmavm]

7. This guy is really as bad as the bush** cabal. Or the

Cheney**/Rumsfeld** cabal, whatever. Because he would vote for it again. He would vote to give these criminals the power to declare war under false pretenses. He would give these criminals the power to murder so many Americans and Iraqis. He would give these criminals the power to bankrupt the country. He is no different.

Other.

[maryallen]

46. Well, so would John Kerry!

Aren't we the lucky ones:

Some friggin' choice ...

[cynatnite]

2. Flip flops scare the hell out of dems like Schumer...

:eyes:

[The2ndWheel]

3. Makes sense for him to say that?

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

Seems to anyway. You don't make it to the Senate by being stupid.

[greekspeak]

4. Are you trying to bait the apologists?

Ten years later, and the apologists just keep perpetuating the downward slide. "We have to move right. We have tricks up our sleeves, Blah Blah Blah." I really wonder sometimes how complicit some of these legislature dems really are.

[AussieDave]

5. No no no no - trying to be Republican Lite won't cut it !!!

Grow a brain cell Chuck - the case is so easy to make that Bush lied a two-year-old could do it !!!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. He's my senator and both of my Dem Senators have been cheerleaders

for the war, even if their constituents are against it. I dislike expressing this openly, but I think it has something to do with a very pro-Israel lobby and how they have helped finance both Schumer and Clinton.

BTW... I am Jewish myself, and this has nothing to do with anti-semitism, but Zionism.

[Hubert Flottz]

8. I think you hit the nail on the head!

Globalists and cheerleaders for the sorry trade agreements and the World Bank.

[demnan]

10. I think you're right

Somehow the pro-Zionist cabal has lobbied the Dems enough to support this war. It's a shame because there are a lot of Jewish people I know who are personally against this war and resent the Jewish/Zionists dictating policy.

[cry baby]

12. I'm sorry to say that I agree with you. Sad to say that about Dems.

money before country.

[Talismom]

18. So am I Ommm, and I agree with you. I've been harrassing them

since the day they voted to OK the resolution to give * the right to declare war. No comment except form BS letters. They are both so entrenched that I can't see how to get rid of them or shake them up and impress them with how angry many of us are. They definitely are not representing the majority of NYers.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. I have also written both of them, so many times I can't count, and

have received those ridiculous form letters in reply. The upsetting thing is that Hillary is coming up for re-election in 2006 and there is no way that I want to vote for her, unless she does an about face in her position. I really wish a strong, viable, anti-war person, ie Robert Kennedy, Jr. would challenge her. I just don't see that the happening though.

[Talismom]

49. Yeah, ya know there gets to be this drum-beat about how much support

they have and how established they are and how it's impossible to unseat them. But I would love to get behind a good alternative candidate or two that would really go for it and shake things up a bit. These dems are almost as annoying as the repukes and I'm starting to find it difficult to defend them against the attack that they're really all the same.

[NNN0LHI]

24. You know that explanation just sounds to pat to me

While I agree the pro-Israel lobby does exert enormous power in this country the same can be said of many other groups. I mean you may be right? But it just seems to be all packaged up and everything into a nice tidy present with a bow and all. That is too obvious. There is more to this. I don't have any proof. I have given this some thought and just feel it is more complicated than the easy its all the pro-Israel lobby thing. I am going to give it some more thought. Thanks for your input.

Don

[flyarm]

40. thank you OMMMSWEETOMMM...for your honesty

about schumer and hillary!!

and you are so right ..it is about zionism!!

and may i add they are DLC...i always think of the "c" in DLC as meaning corporations!!

again thanks ommmmmm for your fight for truth!!

fly:hug: :patriot:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

50. You're welcome dear Fly, and Thank You for being out there!

:hi: and :hug: :)

[understandinglife]

41. I admire your courage to speak your view. And, I agree with you.

Many of us would defend Israel to the end. In my opinion Israel's gravest enemy is, and has been, Likud; just as America's gravest enemy is the neoconster corporatista syndicate -- current puppet chief executive being W.

When the AIPAC/Franklin/Ledeen/Niger forgery/ ..... links are all thoroughly exposed, we'll have a clear picture of the common nodes in the two above referenced networks of globalists.


Peace.

[Cults4Bush]

45. As always UL... spot on.

Likud sucks ass and Israel is not all Likud... though AIPAC certainly seems to be.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. Hopefully those links will be exposed UL. I have a feeling that if anyone

is going to do it, it's going to be Fitzgerald.

Peace :)

[GreenArrow]

9. long term foreign policy

we were to secure that oil, and that strategic location by hook or by crook.

He wasn't lied to; he knew what time it was and that the rationalizations were bogus. The varying reasons were less for Congress' benefit than for the benefit of the American People. That's who this war was really sold to.

[napi21]

11. I think it's something else!

First, I believe you have to have a HUGH ego to get to the Senate or higher than that. Otherwise, all the slams and rotten, mean and nasty things would cause them either never to run a Fed level campaigh, or to just quit and go home.

Second, with such a big ego, ALL OF THEM find it almost impossible to say I screwed up, and I was wrong!

If any of these Dems admitted to "being mislead" or regretting their vote, they're positive their comment will be kept and constantly re-run in campaign ads until the day they quit the Senate. They'll be protrayed as too easily influenced, and constantly screwing up.

[Mizmoon]

13. "He voted for it before he voted against it"

I imagine that he's trying to make sure he doesn't look like an ass like Kerry did. He's trying to stand behind his vote instead of backing off of it.

[blm]

14. Sorry, but the question of process is not the problem with the IWR. The

problem is that Bush did not ADHERE to the guidelines in the IWR. He rushed to war without allowing time for the guidelines to be administered in any proper fashion.

Blaming the IWR means also blaming its guidelines.

Blaming IWR instead of Bush for not implementing it honestly lets Bush off the hook as if there WERE NO GUIDELINES he needed to adhere to.

The media won't hold Bush accountable for those unmet guidelines. many Dems said over and over again that the weapons inspections were doing the job and that Bush rushed into war when there was no need as per the weapons inspections.

The media would not discuss the substance of the Dems complaints but, instead chose to further the spin that a vote for IWR meant you would invade, too. Certainly lets Bush off the hook.

Bush can blame the IWR, too. IWR made me go to war.

Fact: IWR would have PREVENTED war if administered honestly. No Democratic president would have gone to war based on the exact same guidelines of the IWR.

No matter what Scott Ritter claims now, there is NO WAY Gore would have treated the guidelines in the IWR the way Bush did. No Dem would.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The "Duh, I thought Bush wasn't going to use those troops" defense?

While 23 other senators and the rest of the world didn't believe, for a minute, that Bush was going to do anything but invade Iraq, the Democratic collaborators were too dumb to see the handwriting on the wall?

I think not. They knew that Bush was going to send those troops in Kuwait across the border and kill people. They approved of it, and are still hoping for a "victory" to wash the blood off their hands.

Pathetic, cowardly, politicians who put their ambitions ahead of lives.

[blm]

16. No. That Repub spinmeisters use left anger to promote their spin that IWR

gave Bush a blank check for war meaning NO GUIDELINES, when, in fact, there were guidelines in the IWR that Bush did not adhere to HONESTLY.

Gee...nice of so many to accomodate the spin Bush needs to get off the hook.

Too many fell into the trap of blaming the IWR instead of recognizing that the iWR, in the hands of an HONEST president, would have PREVENTED invasion of Iraq.

YOU let Rove's talking point WIN, so the Dems' talking point that Bush rushed to war when the weapons inspections were proving war unnecessary, as per the IWR, gets lost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Rove has the "talking point" because the senators sold out.

Your argument is full of holes.

"Too many fell into the trap of blaming the IWR instead of recognizing that the iWR, in the hands of an HONEST president, would have PREVENTED invasion of Iraq."

The IWR authorized the use of force against Iraq. An illegal authorization on the face of it. As far as the collaborator's bleat that "Bush isn't honest..", No Shit! Anyone with two eyes could see that he was determined to invade Iraq and that the IWR was window dressing in the name of "bi-partisanship".

How many of the senators, particularly Kerry who claimed he was going to go after Bush if he failed to live up to the IWR, still support the occupation?

Both Kerry and Hillary are calling for MORE troops in Iraq and Hillary has spoken blithely about the "failed insurgency".

Rove successfully used the IWR vote in '04 against Kerry, who refused to denounce it, because it was so loaded with hypocristy and the fact was that Kerry supported Bush's war with the vote.

Either that, or I missed the part of Kerry's campaign that called for the US to get out of Iraq because it's an illegal, immoral, and fruitless war.

[blm]

23. I would say that you over simplify because you didn't want to listen to

what some Dems, including Kerry, were really saying.

So, hopefully, Kerry's Iraq speech on Wednesday at Georgetown U, will clarify the entire story in a way that even the blackandwhite crowd can appreciate.

For people like me, we believe foreign policy efforts SHOULD be nuanced, because that means the person takes into account ALL the factors and their consequences. Without nuance you get With us or against us.

[bpilgrim]

17. a PERFECT opportunity to point out shrubs FAILURES but they play CYA

as EXPECTED, unfortunately.

they need to say something like... 'YES, i REGRET that bush used and ABUSED my vote to get INSPECTORS into iraq for ILLEGAL WAR'

fyi: NEVER link the ILLEGAL war in iraq with the 'WOT'

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Connie_Corleone]

20. Kerry used the same explanation, and it never worked.

People still said he voted for the war. Democrats always have a long-winded, gray explanation instead of having a black and white answer.

As long as Democrats keep trying to explain their positions and votes with 2 page answers, they'll continue to lose.

Americans have short attention spans. Long-winded answers don't cut it.

[blm]

22. The truth works only when the media allows it to. The media reinforced

the idea that the IWR gave Bush everything he wanted, when it actually gave him guidelines he worked to obstruct and avoid.

[bpilgrim]

25. ah, that explains it...

i think the kool-aide wears off after a while and the truth will out.

the M$MWs don't do nuance well :evilgrin:


more...
http://GlobalFreePress.com

peace

[bluedawg12]

32. Here is some info. on the IWR and a discussion and a link to it.

Check out this DU thead from yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2177082

"What did they first vote for then against? A look at the law."

>Below is the link to the full text of the Joint Resolution.

The language is interesting in that so much of has proven to be untrue.

First the information came about WMD’s came from three sources:
-international weapons inspectors,
-United States intelligence agencies,
-and Iraqi defectors


Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush <and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[KittyWampus]

27. BLM, I've concluded many DU'ers are simply too brainwashed by the GOP spin

and lies repeated ad naseum by the mediawhores about what the Resolution was to even realise what they're saying... or how they are enabling the GOP and propping up Bush.

It's disgusting. :puke:

[mmonk]

19. Truth of the matter-

We wouldn't be in such a mess without help from the dems.

[KittyWampus]

26. It wasn't an authorization to invade Iraq & that you and so many DU'ers .

keep repeated the LIE doesn't make it true.

In fact, you are helping the GOP and propping up Bush. THEY are the ones who started this LIE and helped by the mediawhores.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Sen. Robert Byrd was lying too right? THEY ARE ALL LYING!

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

Administration applauds vote

<snip>The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. snip

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse." snip

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House.

"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

[SOS]

33. The IWR is clear

Section 3 details the authorization:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- ...the President shall...make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Key words "his determination". Full authorization given to Bush to launch war based on his determination.. Yes IWR required enforcement of SC resolutions. But then it gives Bush the authority to determine that "peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States".

Kennedy, Byrd and 21 others Senators saw through this sham. Byrd called this vote the worst moment in Senate history.

[bluedawg12]

35. Kucinich, Kennedy, and Durbin spoke out against the war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2177082

[GreenArrow]

38. yep,

it's a blank check. It's not enough to say that Bush was supposed to do certain things that didn't get done, when one has voted to let Bush himself be the one who gets to determine how and to what level of satisfaction things are to be done.

That "determination" carries over; he can use it to attack, under the auspices of IWR, anyone whom he determines was responsible for 9/11.

Bush gets to "determine". And they gave that to him.

[understandinglife]

44. "Byrd called this vote the worst moment in Senate history."

And, he was correct.

I wonder how he would rank the day the Senate approved Condi for SoS and Gonzales for AG relative to this.

All in all, it's time to clean house.


Peace.

[Cults4Bush]

48. The excuse for this now turns to political suicide and we would've lost

the election (the irony of the 35% apathy non-vote never occurs to these apologists).

It also eludes the apologists as to why so many think putting ones political career before and above the deaths of innocents might be a tad bit disgusting.

Usually after this is pointed out they fall back on you'd elect a repug over a Dem then.

Their talking points are as useless old and tired as the right wings and I just put these people on ignore now. They don't want my ideas or the things I care about to get attention they just want my money and my vote. Though I doubt they'd vote for a Dennis or a Dean or a Conyers.

[bluedawg12]

34. Here is a thread from yesterday about the Resolution

and arguments that show much of the BS inherent in their ratioable for war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2177082
What did they first vote for then against? A look at the law.

>Fitzgerald, causus belli and the WHIG’s:

As the Fitzgerald investigation heats up and there is a resurgence of interest in the reasons proposed by the administration for invading Iraq, supporters of the administrations actions often point out that not only did Republicans vote to go to war with Iraq but so did Democrats. So it seems interesting to actually review the much discussed, “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq .”


Below is the link to the full text of the Joint Resolution.

The language is interesting in that so much of has proven to be untrue.

First the information came about WMD’s came from three sources:
-international weapons inspectors,
-United States intelligence agencies,
-and Iraqi defectors <

[bluedawg12]

36. I looked up the law and posted on this yest. here at DU

Only one person seemed to have any interest in it.

But I looked up the Congressional resolution, with a link to the complete text, I also looked up the arguments against the alleged reasons for war especially the lie that UN inspectors found WMD's they did not.

So if you want to read the :

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
October 2, 2002

Check out this thread, it has some good information and this topic is important now, because as we approach fitzmas the repugs will seek to smear everyone with the idea that we all are at fault for their war. Information is knowledge.

Check out the thread, please because, as alwyas, DU comments welcomed.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2177082

[flyarm]

42. please everyone go to bluedawg12's other post..it is so important

and so wonderfully put together..its amazing..and should be kept by all of us on our files...

and please nominate and kick it..everyone should read it!!

thanks bluedawg for your work on that..its incredible!!

:hi: :hug: :yourock: :applause: :patriot:

fly

[bpilgrim]

37. and it certainly was NOT about the BULLSHIT 'WOT' that the neoCONs peddle

and some Dems are linking their defense to - fyi

peace

[dogday]

28. I keep waiting for just one Democratic

Senator to stand up and say if I knew then, what I know now about the Iraqi war, I would not of voted for it. Not one has reversed their decision.

I will not vote for anyone whose platform does not contain a resolution to end the Iraq war.

[bluedawg12]

31. Kucinich knew the war was BS and said it out loud before war

The Dems that voted for the war were complicit.

They were afraid to look weak before the '04 elections, and many had secondary and tertiary motives.

The idea of attacking I-wrack goes back to the cabal shadow gov. that hatched this in 1991.

Shrub was just a tool.

Check out the thread on the war vote and the run up to the war, and the fake reasons cited for the war by Congress:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2177082

"What did they first vote for then against? A look at the law."

>As the Fitzgerald investigation heats up and there is a resurgence of interest in the reasons proposed by the administration for invading Iraq, supporters of the administrations actions often point out that not only did Republicans vote to go to war with Iraq but so did Democrats. So it seems interesting to actually review the much discussed, “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq .”


The language is interesting in that so much of it has proven to be untrue.

First the information came about WMD’s came from three sources:
-international weapons inspectors,
-United States intelligence agencies,
-and Iraqi defectors
What did they first vote for then against? A look at the law. <

[bluedawg12]

39. Perhaps Chuck agrees with neoconnies? The FDD???

Maybe because he is on the Board of the FDD.


http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

The FDD
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/fdd.php

>Republican Party insiders dominate FDD's board and staff. FDD's three board members are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, and Jeane Kirkpatrick. Its two “distinguished advisers” are Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey, while other advisers include Gary Bauer, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Walid Phares, Charles Krauthammer, and Frank Gaffney—all prominent neoconservative figures with multiple links to the Defense Policy Board, Center for Security Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Weekly Standard, and Project for the New American Century. Among FDD's advisers are also several prominent Democrats associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute, including Donna Brazzile, a close associate of Sen. Joseph Lieberman; and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA).(2)<

[shance]

43. Stupid implies Schumer didnt know what he was saying. He knew

exactly what he was saying.

If Schumer wants to promote a fascist and ironically fundamentalistic policy for his own narrow minded and/or racist beliefs, then I think we need to get rid of the electronic machines so we can get rid of his bad leadership and elect someone else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. The DLC weak at the knees strikes again?

Ammong many other idiotic reasons...