Russ Feingold was duped on Iraq too

[sandnsea]

Because someone chose not to vote for the IWR, it doesn't mean it was because they thought Bush was lying about WMD. Here's what Russ Feingold said in Oct 2002. The conclusions about Saddam and WMD were the same by almost everybody, the solution to those conclusions was different. Feingold voted against the resolution, not because he thought Saddam had no WMD, but because he thought it was a diversion from the more important terrorist threat. A "no" vote does not indicate anybody who "knew" anything different than those who voted "yes". It was never that simple.

"I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change."

"We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

[punpirate]

1. Yet, here's the bottom line...

... a bottom line which the American public hasn't yet figured out: rhetoric does not count. One's vote does.

Feingold still voted no. Many others did not. That gave Bush the right to proceed as he chose.

That lesson applies to all votes, not just the IWR. A legislator who votes in favor of a bad bill, but whose rhetoric says, "well, this was the best we could get," still voted for a bad bill.

Feingold voted against a bad bill, as he should have done. I don't care what he said afterwards.

[LittleClarkie]

2. However, this is a rebuttal to those who ask

"Gee, how come I knew it was all bogus, and Kerry didn't." Well, it looks like Feingold didn't know it was all bogus either. This is aside from the vote. This is about whether or not those who believed in the WMD's were that damn dumb, or were they just shown compelling, if faked, evidence.

Or is the "I was duped" discussion more about voting for the bill than believing in WMD's?

I thought at the least it was both.

[sandnsea]

4. Kucinich called for inspections

I don't know why he would call for inspections in 2002 if he "knew" Bush was lying and there were no WMD.

[JohnnyCougar]

5. Even knowing that Bush was lying, I still supported inspections

Because there is always a chance that you are wrong. The problem is, war was not reversable, but inspections harmed no one.

[sandnsea]

6. But but... you KNEW

Chance you're wrong. :eyes: That's the whole point, the vote was to get those inspectors INTO Iraq. The vote wasn't wrong, Bush lying about the WMD, ignoring the inspectors and rushing us into war was wrong. Just like Kerry alway said.

[JohnnyCougar]

9. The vote wasn't ONLY about getting inspectors into Iraq

It was also about giving the President the discression to determine the conditions for war, something he shouldn't have had.

When I say I know stuff, that means I beleive in it 100% at the time. But there is always the chance that my beliefs are off, therefore, even if I feel I know something, I take a cautious route. Especially when the stakes are high.

The IWR was not a cautious route.

[sandnsea]

11. To Kerry, it was the cautious route

Because traditionally, Presidents don't politicize war. Based on GW1 and Afghanistan, he didn't think they would this time either. The vote was to resolve all issues surrounding Iraq and inspectors were required to do that. One can't say they supported inspections without having a plan to get the inspectors in and insure they could do their job 100%. Presidents are also the Commander in Chief, which means it is THEIR JOB to determine exactly when to deploy troops in war, even if Congress votes for a Declaration of War, the President still has the final authority.

[JohnnyCougar]

13. There was no evidence that Bush was a traditional president by that time.

ESPECIALLY in the climate after 9/11.

And IWR skipped the Congressional vote thing altogether, making it the President's decision to go to war in the end, without debate.

Which

was

WRONG!

[sandnsea]

15. He had 80% approval

Funny how people forget that, or think that just because they hated him, everybody did. And again, even a Declaration of War wouldn't have mattered because it's still the President's final decision and Bush still would have lied.

[eridani]

20. To get the proof in the public eye, of course n/t

[punpirate]

10. What counts?

What really counts?

Talk? Or the vote?

It's as simple as that. I don't give Kerry points for doing the wrong thing and then having misgivings later, when he had the opportunity to avoid the more catastrophic course. Everyone who voted for the IWR had the opportunity to avoid the more catastrophic course of action and did not. If you will remember, there were international inspectors in the country who were saying that the Bushies were wrong.

There was good evidence before and after that vote to suggest it was a put-up job by the Bushies.

Here's what I conceive of as the bottom line--too many representatives were afraid to vote against Bush for fear of their political careers, despite the evidence. That is a function of the militarism which has infected this country. Many of us here knew that the Bush program to promote the war was propaganda, and that the bases for their propaganda were suspect on the evidence.

When war is promoted by an administration, healthy skepticism, not fear of an electorate whipped up by the propaganda of that administration, should be the guiding principle. In this case, it was not.

But, ultimately, votes count. Period. Words are mutable and interpretable. Votes are not. They are absolute. There are people in this Congress who believe they can undo their unwise actions with words. They cannot. There are many people who have died because of their unwise actions--their votes.

Cheers.

[LittleClarkie]

14. Words count too. I'd like to think my Senator wasn't talking out his butt

I have too much respect for him for that.

[sandnsea]

3. "knowing" doesn't count?

Is that it? Whether someone is right or wrong on what they "know" when they make a vote isn't relevant? I don't want you in Congress if that's what you think, I "know" that.

[punpirate]

7. In a world swimming in media and political "nuances,"...

... I only pay attention to votes. If you pay attention to rhetoric, you will likely always be deceived.

I'm not going to be baited for speaking the obvious (and I have no ambitions whatever for Congress). Votes count. Rhetoric does not. That's the way the system works. I can rattle off the names of politicians who, throughout the ages, talked a good game, but then voted against the interests of their constituents (Biden comes to mind, immediately, in that regard, along with any number of other so-called "good Democrats").

If you believe that rhetoric is more important, I fear you'll go through life being disappointed.

What determines the course of the country is how our representatives vote. Feingold voted against the IWR, when many others voted for it.

We are in the fix we are in today because enough people believed in Bush's empty rhetoric to get him close enough to steal the election(s).

Votes count--at all levels.

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

8. votes for wrong reasons are just as bad

I couldn't possibly make decisions about people simply on votes. I could end up voting for Ron Paul if that were the case.

[punpirate]

16. Still...

... votes are what you vote for. If Ron Paul is more often right on votes, does it matter if he's otherwise a raving Libertarian? Can you value people who always speak as if they understand the people and then vote against their interests on the most important issues for the people?

The decision to go to war is likely the single most serious one that government can make--because the effects of it cannot be undone. A bad spending bill can be repealed with a change in majority. A decision to allow someone like Bush to undertake war on his own terms cannot. The damage that this war has done, to soldiers, to civilians, to America's reputation around the world and its likelihood of encouraging terrorism against the US for generations to come are not in question--they are realities stemming from that Congressional acquiescence for war. Any vote against it was prescient, regardless of the rhetoric--even if the basis for a "no" vote was simple reluctance or the belief that efforts were better directed elsewhere.

That's the lesson of Pandora's box--can't retrieve all the escaped evil and get it back in again. In this case, the release of that evil depended upon how those in Congress voted on just one measure. Some who spoke as if they were defending the people voted for it, but some did not. Whom of those are ultimately responsible for that unleashing?

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

17. His votes aren't more often right

That's the whole point. That's why the reasons for the votes matter so you don't get snookered by one or two that you agree with. What matters is what are people going to do after the vote. What are they unleashing. You don't know that unless you listen to what they have to say. That's why people don't know that Kerry hasn't really said anything today that's all that much different than a year ago, they didn't listen. If they had, him withdrawing troops wouldn't have been news at all, he planned to begin withdrawing troops this past summer and said it a year ago. That was a huge difference between him and Bush. But everybody listened to what the media said he said instead of what he said. Words matter. Bush's words should have been used to hold him to account, his words are the ones that have horrified the world, his words unleashed the lies and the bullying, his words alienated the world. Not any vote.

[punpirate]

18. Again...

... who promoted war, and who voted for war?

It's that simple. The vote opened the box. The evil is out in the world.

It can't be put back in. Not even by Kerry's words today, or anyone elses. It can't be undone with words.

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

19. Bush opened the box

He opened it with words and keeps it open with words. Only words, that convince the American people to demand change, can put the evil back in the box.

[liberalnurse]

12. Going to war without an immanent thread is just wrong.

Giving that turd in the White House the authority to make that choice was nutzo. All they yea voters did so because they wanted to keep up with their public-voting appearance......it was vanity vote post a 911 public. Feingold just did his job above and beyond all others.

They chose poorly.....