I have a problem with Randi's argument about Dems voting for war

[Skidmore]

and not being able to say that they made a mistake. Half of the Dems voted against it at the time--with no problem saying they didn't agree with the agenda. I just don't feel like cutting that kind of slack for them. So many people have died and been injured and suffered. They need to be held accountable to for not having the balls to vote their conviction, if they truly at the time believed that war was not a good way to resolve issues.

[movonne]

1. I am so sick of these Repug light Dems...we have to get rid of them

too...maybe not right now but little by little and put some real Liberals in...that is the only way we can take this country back!!

[MasonJar]

2. What they voted for was not war unless every other option were

exhausted, the one thing the Neo-conmen never intended to do...exhaust options. Also they were lied to. I remember Kerry's sirprise when he was running that the Pugs lied all the time.

[Debi]

5. By 2002 all Dems knew Bush was not to be trusted

and he could have gone ahead w/out their permission (and the IWR would have passed w/out the Dems vote). They were trying to save their political careers, not trying to save Americans.

[Skidmore]

8. By 2002, they knew he couldn't be trusted on anything but

still trotted out that "bipartisan manner" crap to hand the people their asses on a platter time after time. This is why I'm angry at Dems. So they didn't agree, THAT DIDN'T MEAN THEY HAD TO VOTE FOR EVERY GD THING THE Rs RUSHED OUT THERE!! From the war to credit card legislation to medication to caps for law suits to tax cuts--the list goes on and on. They sold the people out. Apologies don't cut it. Actions would.

[Debi]

10. Agreed

:applause:

[slaveplanet]

17. What about Byrd?

Did he lose his career over his vote?

[Skidmore]

19. What are you talking about?

Why single Byrd out?

I'm talking about a general propensity for totally ignoring the people and voting for the asinine and hurtful policies of this administration's agenda time after time after time.

[slaveplanet]

27. I was replying to post # 5

They were trying to save their political careers, not trying to save Americans.

simply illustrating that the elder senatorial statesman of the Democratic party did not believe in the neocon war machine, almost singlehandedly fillibustering with speeches that now have come true...and were almost universally ignored like he was some kind of neophyte.

It has'nt hurt his political career in the least...

saying that it would, is a bullshit apologist Opine

[Debi]

21. Not everyone lost their career b/c of thier votes

But those that voted for IWR lost respect and should apologize.

(It is just my opinion - you don't have to agree w/it)

[wuushew]

20. Elective war is NOT legal in the post 1945 U.N. world

The whole idea of "bluffing" Saddam Hussein by threating to destroy him and his country was profoundly immoral. By voting yes the turncoat Senators in our own party gave their support for the legitimacy of this view.

Military force is only acceptable if you yourself are being attacked by another belligerent country. I don't give a damn if Iraq, Iran or any other country actually does have WMDs it is not a crime to posses such weapons only use them in a conflict. Disapproval can be shown by various and peaceful carrot approaches for shaping behavior.

The United State's and its great nuclear arsenal have the ability to end all life on the face of the Earth. We also have by and large the most destructive and awesome conventional military force on the globe. When is someone going to come forcibly disarm us? We didn't stop the Russians in 1949 or the Chinese in the late 1950's by invading them and committing whole scale butchery on their populace.

Amerika needs to stay the fuck out of other people's business. corporate interests are not American interests nor is any amount of monetary(oil) wealth worth a single life.

[Greeby]

3. The total dem no votes were

22 (Senate) and 126+1 (House, including Sanders for the sake of it)

So, it was more like a third that voted yea

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. Actually, only 21 Dems voted against the war resolution. Chaffee

of RI a Republican voted against it, and so did Jeffords, Independant from Vt.

[Greeby]

22. Oh yeah, got my numbers wrong

sorry :dunce:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Please don't feel like a dunce. It was wishful thinking on my part that

all of those 23 were Dems too. They keep breaking my heart.

[Debi]

4. I do want to see them admit they made a mistake

and not this 'I was mislead' bullshit, but MADE A BIG MISTAKE.

Then I don't plan on trusting any of them with my vote...ever.

[CTyankee]

7. Go back now and read MasonJar's #2 reply

I think that's right, they did vote for war only as a last resort. Here I'm going to have to say that if I were a Dem in the Senate, and it was BEFORE the truth came out, I might vote for the resolution. Even tho we all suspected that Bushco was full of it, what if there had been some truth to the WMD's not being really destroyed. I would have been gone in the next election (if I were in some states). Not only self preservation was at work, but also preservation of a Dem vote in the Senate. And I'm sure they said to themselves "Well, it IS a last resort."

I don't think we knew how evil Bushco was and how far he would go.

Come on, folks. Hindsight is 20/20, ya know?

[Debi]

9. Not to those who didn't believe Bush and his crowd

And had enough balls to vote no.

He stole the 2000 election, he pushed through the PATRIOT ACT after 9/11, he pushed through the tax cuts, he arranged the vote right prior to an election to make Dems show their hand....when were we supposed to STOP trusting him?

I was against IWR from the start - and my Senator voted against it. I won't defend the weak Dems who voted for it.

[confludemocrat]

12. YOU go back and read Skidmore and Debi's reply. The WMD thing: BS

we know he hadn't used WMDs in 11 years they had found none and had no leads on any others. We knew the move against Iraq made no sense. Apologize all you must for the pro-war Demos, but their lack of guts on other topics makes them largely indefensible anyway.

[CTyankee]

24. Hello, hindsight?

Let us not bellow into that goodnight!

Please. I wish we had known more. I wish our inkling, our gut, which we all felt, had been enough. But there was the doubt.

OK. You weren't there. If you had just enough of a bit of doubt, would you have voted "no." What if only a piece of what you had voted against had been wrong and you were wrong in the next election? What then? Another lost Dem in the Senate.

All I am saying is that this is a scenario that could have played in some heads, not that I agree with them. And by that reckoning, it could have been more of a loss for the Dems.

I'm glad we were right. But what if we were wrong?

[wryter2000]

14. Yes and no

We didn't know exactly how evil * was, but we had enough clues that he was going to invade no matter what. Lord knew they'd made enough noises about how they didn't need UN or Congressional approval.

That being said, the Dems were duped. Colin Powell had me going with his speech at the UN (although I was convinced that inspections were the way to go). The folks in Congress were getting treated to even more lies.

However, it's about damned time for Dems to say it was a mistake to vote for the war and if they knew then what they know now, they never would have. I don't think any of us knew the depths of their deception until Joe Wilson spoke up. Schumer's statement yesterday was pathetic (that he didn't regret his vote because it was meant so show that he was serious about a war on terror or some such bullshit).

[Larkspur]

15. No, the Biden-Lugar Amendment would have made the "I didn't vote for the

war" argument possible, but IWR as passed was a blank check for Bush to go to war. Oh Yeah, Bush had to trot infront of the UN, but he did not have to go back to Congress to get permission to launch war until AFTER he launched it. That is Congressional abdication!! Bush made a mockery of that tepid demand by Congress and everyone who was not blinded by Prez ambitions, neo-con dreams, or fears of being labeled "unpatriotic" knew that Bush would go through the motions of asking the UN to support their war but would still launch an invaion of Iraq regardless of what the UN said.

Those Dems who voted for IWR are guilty of enabling a war criminal along with their Repuke colleagues who voted for it.

[blm]

29. B-L never said he had to go back to congress for permission. Dean made a

mistake when he said that and admitted he was mistaken shortly after saying it.

The only difference was that B-L said Bush had to send the letter when he starts military action as opposed to the within 48 hr. window of the IWR.

And regime change is a nonstarter because regime change was ALREADY a US policy since 1998.

[seaglass]

16. That's the way I see it. It was a risk either way. Personally I

didn't believe Bush because I never trusted him, but I wasn't risking any of my fellow Americans lives based on "belief."

I think that the IWR was clear that it was meant as a last resort. That isn't what happened.

[Proud_Lefty]

6. Could it be their campaign financial backers won't let them

publicly speak against the war? Those that put them into office are financially benefitting from this war and probably won't allow their puppet to speak out against their financial security and corporate control. Just a theory because this is the only thing that makes sense. These Dems need to decide between the people and their corporate financers.

[McKenzie]

11. you are bang on target Proud_Lefty

money and politics are synonymns these days. Take the monied interests out of the political process - the USA is meant to be a democracy. Once filthy lucre gets a say it's bye byeeee to principles.

Money is not the friend of democracy.

[Debi]

13. They obviously did in 2002.

And look how that worked out for Daschle and Gephardt and Edwards.

[ikojo]

25. That's why I prefer Mike Malloy over Randi Rhodes...

he cuts the Dems no slack. Randi will call right wingers on the carpet, which I enjoy, but she will excuse a Dem to the end of the world, even if they are Republican lite.

[sandnsea]

26. It's important to let Bush get away with starting this war all by himself

Not letting the inspections continue, lying about the evidence, writing a letter to Congress telling them he had lived up to the standards laid out in the IWR and that Iraq was a grave danger. No, it's really the Democrats who are to blame. :sarcasm:

[shance]

28. Agreed Skidmore.

n/t