NPR's Damning Story on Senate Democrats & Iraq

[RSchewe]

Sirotablog: NPR's Damning Story on Senate Democrats & Iraq

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4974297">NPR's David Welna interviewed me today on how Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq War and who do not say that vote was a mistake have hurt the party's ability to craft any sort of coherent message on national security. Welna's piece is extremely hard hitting. He gets some Democratic Senators on record who voted for the war to admit admit it was a mistake - these Senators have a lot of guts and should be applauded. Welna also catches on tape two Democratic Senators - Hillary Clinton and Herb Kohl - refusing to answer any questions about the war. That's depressing. And it gets Sens. Ben Nelson and Chuck Schumer continuing to defend their vote, cowering in the face of the fear of being attacked as somehow "weak" on security. That's worse than sad - its a tragedy. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4974297">Listen to the story here - it is damning.

http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/10/nprs-damning-story-on-senate-democrats.html

[unschooler]

1. I don't believe for a minute that they were "duped." I think they

were just too gutless to stand up to a "war president."

[Alpharetta]

3. no spine

Nobody who voted for the IWR gets my primary vote or primary support.

[Jacobin]

5. Yep. How were THEY duped, if we weren't?

Both sides of the story on the invasion were available. You just had to look a bit for it.

Gaggle of Gutless wonders

[Metta]

2. I think they lacked a moral compass and were, then, easily taken in.

Fwiw.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. At some point they are in danger of being outflanked

by Republicans desperate to keep their seats who start to speak out against the war. It is getting to be ridiculous.

[unschooler]

6. The Freep politicians are irritating jerks, but at least they TALK!

[unschooler]

10. Ooooh. Now the republicans in Congress were duped. Sure.

Everybody in DC was duped. Yeah. Right.

[sendero]

7. I think most Dems..

.... who voted for the IWR (please, no arguments about it not being an explicit authorization, etc - they knew it was all Bush needed) did it out of pure political expediency.

They were afraid to go against the Zeitgeist of the country, they were afraid of the "soft on terror" label, they were afraid for their political futures.

I have only one thing to say to them: "how's that vote working out for ya?"

[Chi-Town Exile]

12. Good point.

They never cease to amaze me, they cower in the corner for fear of losing their senate/house seats but they continue to lose on every. single. issue.

They're so scared of losing they can't win!

What are they afraid of? We've lost EVERY branch of the government, what more can be lost?

Spineless fucking jellyfish. I take that back ... at least jellyfish have a STING. :grr:

[Donna Zen]

13. How's that vote working out for the troops?

n/t

[Olney Blue]

16. For 2000, not so good.

[LostInAnomie]

8. Being fooled is a convenient excuse.

I will admit that they were in a difficult position with *'s incredibly high approval ratings at the time as well as the media drum-beat for war but they did us as well as the country a horrible disservice. Instead of fighting what they knew was wrong and asking questions they knuckled under in hopes that they wouldn't lose their precious congressional or senatorial seat, which they did anyway.

They sold us out.

[Chi-Town Exile]

17. Agreed.

That being said, I guess the question is are there enough qualified anti-war Democratic candidates out there to challenge these Senators?

What I mean is, isn't the prospect of losing these Senate seats to more Republicans a worse situation than what we have now? :dilemma:

[Zynx]

9. We would have gained many more votes had we come out firmly in

opposition to it. What sense does it make for someone to vote for Democrats on Iraq for being pro-Iraq when they can get the Republicans?

[Chi-Town Exile]

14. That's true, but I think a lot of our "esteemed" Senators had

the shit scared out of them by what was done to Max Cleland.

They didn't want to get painted with the "weak on terrorism" brush.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying what they did I'm just trying to understand why they did it.

[dusty64]

22. What happened to Cleland

was diebold.......

[Chi-Town Exile]

25. I voted for Cleland and

I was referring to the sickening campaign waged by Saxby Chambliss.

I know what I'm talking about, I had to endure the disgusting commercials Chambliss ran incessantly.

Remember the commercial that morphed Cleland's face into Osama Been Forgotten?

That was the point of my post, and IMO reducing Cleland's loss to Diebold is a very simplistic observation about that senate race.

[Donna Zen]

11. Immanent Threat

That qualifier is usually left out in all of these discussions. Even if they thought that Saddam might have a few tabs of anthrax stashed in some forgotten closet, the consideration of a preemptive strike was based on the notion the Saddam was an immanent threat which he never was.

Two things cowed the Dems. 1) that something, however tiny, might be found and they would be left-out of the chorus line of crowing fools, or 2) their big money donors pressured them into this mess.

They all knew!

As for Hillary...considering it was her husband who received a letter from PNAC with an outline, anything she has to say is a lie about a lie. Now, if it's on schedule, someone should tell me what a great politician she is. To which I say: but does she love her country?

[Old and In the Way]

20. A very complicated issue.

The backdrop was 9/11, anthrax attacks, and this administration's blitz (with accompanying media support)....and the coming mid-term elections.

I saw it as a Hobson's choice. Vote against the War resolution and if Bush is right, WMD's are found....risk the label of "The Party of Appeasers' and 'Saddam/Al-Qaeda Supporters'. Vote against and defeat, then another "event" occurs...who gets blamed? Vote for the War and piss off the left-of-center Democrats (us). Actually, I saw the vote as support of the Office of the Presidency...not necessarily Bush. This was about giving the sitting President the authority and flexibility to deal with what they were told was an immenent threat. If it was a Democratic President (and he was confronted with a real immenent threat, wouldn't we want the Republicans to support?)

It wasn't so much that the Democrat's were wrong to support the Office of the President....they were wrong to trust this pResident. He is the one that lied about the causus belli and inarguably has made the task more difficult for future Presidents who will be confronted by events that require bi-partisan support. That is the real tragedy here. Democrats trusted this man to do the right thing...instead, he did it for personal and political reasons based on lies that were told to Congress and the American people.

I'm disappointed that the Democrats didn't stand against....but I also understanmd the political calculus and the poker hand that Bush was playing. He bluffed, we folded, the country lost the pot.

It was Bush's War and Bush's Lie.....he'll be the one that wears that scarlet letter in the history of US Presidents.

[spanone]

15. Damn the Republicans too, they voted for it also.

Damn them all. Re-election is their only criteria.

[Fairlyunbalanced]

18. I believed the WMD thing at first

But it didn't take long to smell the doodoo.

I'll admit it though i was duped for a couple months.

But I wasn't for authorizing the war without evidence. And I'm not a congressman :shrug:

[SeaNap05]

19. NPR has a calming affect

I understand NPRs Politics but that station has some soothing affect. I guess it is the way the audio is fed.

[emulatorloo]

21. When will NPR do the damning Story on Forged Niger Docs, Ginned up Case

For War, Saddam-wants-nukes-SOTU, Outing Of Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memos, Condi's Mushroom Cloud, Judy Miller's Aluminum Tubes, and so on?

Or is it all just damning democrats now?

[Rex]

23. Look, I don't have the resources that a Senator does

yet I knew it was all a FARCE the moment they shifted focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. I will except NO EXCUSE for voting for invading Iraq, poor ol' me found out within HOURS! No sir!

Those that realize it was a mistake need to be working like hell to make people know how it was all a lie. One that they bought into under false pretenses! The WH lied like hell to EVERYONE, so use the ammo given Dem leaders! False pretenses can be a deal breaker in an agreement Dems.

[1932]

24. Galbraith told JFK the way to deal with the Republicans acusing

Democrats of being weak on security was not to try to outmuscle them as Truman did, but was to tell America that Republicans take being tough on security to the point of being dangerous -- they start wars that get people killed.

It's in Parker's biography, about half way through. I'll find it and quote it at some point.