If Dem canidates would have voted NO on war?

[FXDS]

What if Edwards, Kerry, Gep, etc would have voted no and things would have played out different than they have? What if Uranium, WMD etc would have been found or planted? What would the situation today be?

Like it or not, there really wasn't a choice.

[JI7]

1. well, kucinich did vote no

and he doesn't get much respect for it from many who are most critical of those who voted yes so i don't see much being different.

[frank frankly]

2. i would have voted no

based on what I find on the web

there was a HUGE choice.

If they had the weapons as described, I still would have opposed it.

[lcordero]

3. Oh?

Saddam has been nothing but compliant and accomodating to the weapons inspectors since 1998.
The boy king admitted to the world that there were no WMDs when he wouldn't let the weapons inspectors back into the country.

His illegal invasion amounts to an illegal search and no "evidence" that comes from it should EVER be considered valid.

There is always a choice.

[Scott Lee]

4. You just set up a strawman

Reality played out like this:

Some Dems voted for IWR and a few did not.

No uranium or WMD have been found.

Those who had the guts and brains not to endorse IWR have been vindicated. They exhibited a superior thought process, analytical demand for proof and stamina to stick to their position despite all the hyperpatriotic browbeating. That means they are excellent prospects for leadership.

Those who went along with the IWR hysteria showed cowardice, put their critical analysis on hold and exposed that they cannot be trusted as leaders.

It seems clear to me.

[FXDS]

5. My point is

I guess my point is, if all Democrats would have voted no, the GOP would have tried to make all Dem's look like Traitors, Commies, etc. I know they do this on a daily basis, but I think it would have really grown legs, Faux and the Pill Poppin Pig Boy would've had an erection that would have measured coast to coast.

[lcordero]

6. My point is that the Dems could have

save over 15,000+ lives and over half a trillion dollars...but they didn't.
Nobody that's sane wanted this stupidity in the first place.

[Dr Satan]

8. in other words

you are afraid.

[FXDS]

9. My ASS!

I'm not afraid of shitt, GET IT!

I am concerned that the Nazi SON OF A BITCH BUSH will hold his thrown in the white house beyond 2004!

[Scott Lee]

10. How would the GOP do that?

How do you "make them look like traitors" effectively when no hard evidence surfaces to make the anti-IWR vote look bad?

Are you suggesting that we knuckle under to fear, intimidation and GOP sleaze instead of retain our critical analysis, sensible skepticism and backbone?

Tell me you're joking. Or tell me you're a republican.

[Zorra]

7. Somehow, Kucinich knew......

From Nov. 2002:

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman. America cannot and should not try to pick the leaders of other nations. Nor should America and the American people be pressed into the service of international oil interests and arms dealers.

If the United States proceeds with a first strike policy, then we will have taken upon our nation a historic burden of committing a violation of international law, and we would then forfeit any moral high ground we could hope to hold.

http://www.progressive.org/nov02/kuc1102.html

[sandnsea]

18. It also says

"It must involve the United Nations. Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately. Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites."

Why would Dennis believe inspections must begin immediately if he didn't think there were any weapons in the country?

[Scott Lee]

11. It looks to me like you want to excuse cowardice by the Dems!

Is that your intent?

Shame on you, if it is.

[FXDS]

13. No excuses!

I will vote Dem period, always have and always will! I have been supporting Kerry, BIG SURPRISE and will continue!

[jpgray]

12. If politicians weren't chiefly concerned with gaining and holding power?

Yes, that would be nice. I would also like a pony.

Come on, an ambitious adult who is that in love with power just isn't the sort of person you'd expect to behave in a responsible manner. Are there exceptions? Sure. I just wish there were more of them.

[JCMach1]

14. There was choice... they chose their vote

mainly for 'political' reasons. They didn't actively seek out the truth through the spin.

That makes them a particularly bad political critter.

Then, to turn on the President and their own decision (once the tide of opinion turns) makes them even more suspect in my eyes.

They blew it in a big way (count Lieberman in this category too). They believed they could win by giving in to Bush on foreign policy and resisting on economic policy. What they didn't count on is the absolute hatred of Bush among the Democratic rank and file (especially the activists).

Those were HUGE political miscalculations for them and shows their particular removal from the grassroots of the party.

[Old and In the Way]

15. I wonder about the vote, too.

What if the Democrats had truly voted their conscience as a block? They should have supported the UN inspection that was working....why didn't they? In spite of the bogus intel, they should have been in strong, unified opposition.

Maybe I'm just plain cynical or paranoid, but maybe they "read between the lines". Maybe the Dems realized that 9/11 was LIHOP. Wasn't the anthrax attack a message to the Democratic leadership? We saw what happened to McKenney when she asked the question "what did Bush know"?

So they had great reason not to trust this administration's reasons to war, but I suspect that a united Democrat vote against IWR was precisely what this administration hoped for. Shortly thereafter we'd have had a major Iraqi suicider "event" here and the Democratic Party would have been toast in 2004. Can you imagine how the corporate media propaganda machine would have played this? We would have become the collective Neville Chamberlain, the "Party of Saddam Appeasers". And I'm sure that "event" would have been investigated too.

So I think IWR was a Hobson's choice for the Democrats. Vote against your natural inclinations, piss of the constituents, and survive to fight another day or vote for, be correct, and watch the Republicans maintain control for the next 10 generations or so.

[sandnsea]

16. People think there were inspections???????

Two posters are saying Saddam was complying with inspections. Are people making opinions on this vote believing this?

[JI7]

20. right

inspections started after that vote. the vote happened at a time when there were no inspections.

[JNelson6563]

17. If the Dems had voted "no"

and the IWR still passed by a narrow margin it still would have been better. As it stands Jr can point to that vote and state that it had "broad, bi-partisan support". Shame on our Dems for that.

Julie

[HFishbine]

19. I would

accuse them of the same poor judgement I find them guilty of today.

If there wasn't really a choice, why did Kucinich and scores of other lawmakers make a different, correct, choice.

Ask yourself, what if Edwards, Kerry, Gep, etc had voted no and it turned out that Saddam had no WMDs, not even weapons "programs." One answer: they'd all be kicking Howard Dean's butt.

[adriennel]

21. wha???

I totally disagree that "there wasn't really a choice". Of course there was a choice--'just say no'. Kucinich did and this action alone has kept him on my radar. I don't think Kerry, Edwards, or Gephardt had their hands tied behind their back. IMHO, they were just more concerned with how they would look if they did NOT support the war than voting on their conscience. And that is a big problem for me.

[Cocoa]

22. the dems would be accused of playing politics for the war

and the present problems in Iraq would be blamed on that.

And any of the dems' constructive proposals on what to do now would be dismissed, since the dems never wanted the war.

And just like Europe, the dems would be accused of wanting the war to fail.

[HFishbine]

24. Thank God

none of that is happening now. Fortunately, because of their war votes, the dems are never called unpatriotic and their legislative agenda is being embraced by the president out of gratitude for their war support. Thank goodness.

[Cocoa]

26. not with the war, though

the republicans are reduced to ridiculing the "nuance" in the position.

Not quite as powerful as saying the dems are rooting for the U.S. to lose.

[RichM]

23. Weak-minded bullshit. This is called "being an apologist for cowardice."

If you think like this - and many obviously Democrats do - you are letting your fear of what Republicans might say completely determine your politics. Then it's impossible to EVER stand up to them, even on the most important issue of our times.

This is the kind of thinking that makes you a slave. Once you accept the premise of "Like it or not, there really wasn't a choice," you no longer have the ability to stand on your own two feet.

[MadHound]

25. Another apologist for the quisling Dems

And there was a choice. They could have voted their conscience, or better yet, do their job and follow their constituents' wishes. Mail, phone and e-mail was running heavily towards a NO vote on the IWR, but once again these quisling Dems ignored their constituents in order to play politics and suck up to Bush.

If these pro-war Dems had voted NO, there would be a lot more people who would be comfortable in supporting them. I know I certainly would be, and I suspect I'm not alone. I do know that my former Senator's(Jean Carnahan) YES vote cost her not only my vote in '02, but a whole slew of other liberal and Dem votes who went Green instead.

But these quisling Dems made their choice, and they're going to have to live with it, come what may. Quite frankly I hope none of them ever holds office again. They don't deserve to.