Consolation Prize: No Iraqi Blood on Dem Hands

[Shalom]

Don't get me wrong - I was fiercely against Bushitler's re-selection, and continue to work to overturn the fraudulent results of the 2004 charade.

Neither do I fault John Kerry for having to promise to clean up Georgie's Big Mess in Iraq, since it is logical that a complete and immediate withdrawal from the Iraqi quagmire is not only very risky at this point, but politically suicidal for a Presidential candidate to advocate.

However, we should recognize that had Kerry been received the victory he won, right after election day he would have had to endorse the carnage in Fallujah, or appear to be undercutting and undermining our troops. Prior to even taking office, he would have been forced to buy into the "collective punishment" our Armed Forces are now desperately waging against Iraqi cites such as Fallujah and Mosul. By the time he took office, he would have to choose between continuing this course, or "flip-flopping" by withdrawing, and then be accused of "losing" Iraq.

At the very least this is a consolation prize to Democrats, who don't have to have any Iraq blood on their hands, even if it is only a by-product of the murderous, pathological and cowardly policies of the AWOL cokehead commander-in-thief, George Bushitler.

[derby378]

1. Here's another

The Bush campaign tried to run on 9/11 - it floundered.

Then they tried Iraq - it stumbled.

Then they tried to label Kerry as a flip-flopper - no long-term effect.

Then Swift Boat Veterans launched their own ads - some success, but wiped out by the debates.

Then Kerry was recast as a liberal from the loony left - not enough momentum.

Finally, Karl Rove called up some churches to get out the anti-gay-marriage vote. Then he probably called Diebold to insert some lines of code in the touchscreens. THAT sealed the election for Bush.

At least, for now.

My point is, however, we managed to blunt most of Bush's attacks and de-link the invasion of Iraq from the War on Terror. That is no small achievement.

[pnutchuck]

2. We still have blood on our hands

Didn't the senate vote overwhelmingly to support Bush in his war in Iraq? Yes, it was based on false evidence, but there was very little questioning of the documentation. Call me an old fashioned liberal, but I thought we democrats were supposed to be about peace, love and fairness to all. With so many dems backing the president, I can't see that the dem party is left without blame.

[Kerrytravelers]

3. I agree that Dems have no blood on their hands...

... even those who, in the beginning, supported the Bush Regime. 70% of this country wanted to believe their president. The vote, from my understanding ( and please correct me if I am way off base here), is that the vote was to allow Shrub the authority to do what was needed, but after all other avenues were exhausted.

I think that anyone who voted for the Bush Regime in 2004 definitely has blood on their hands. I'll even go as far as saying they are complicit in murder. Being ignorant is no excuse since the information about what we are doing is out there. By voting for a man who would bomb innocent children and families (and mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, grandparents, the disabled, the list goes on and on) in Iraq, you are basically saying "Yes, this war is the right thing. Or, I care more about homosexuals having equality than I do about the innocent lives lost."

For me, that is what stains your hands in blood because now we know what this man is capable of. In 2000, maybe I'm naive, but I never realized what he was capable of... and no, I did not vote for Shrub. I voted for Gore.

[pnutchuck]

5. The dems knew going into this who they were up against

Bush has the largest record of death penalties under his belt as Texas Gov. He is a known bitch of the oil companies. Daddy was a former head of the CIA and unavenged in Iraq. For the Dems to have authorized funding for a war prior to UN inspection completion, just shows how maleable our party is to Rebublican bullying.

[Shalom]

4. Dems have some guilt, but are not the real killers

Just remember that Bushitler asked for Congressional AUTHORITY to take action against Iraq as a LAST RESORT, and claimed he needed a credible threat of force in order to achieve a peaceful resolution of the standoff regarding weapons inspections in Iraq.

I agree Dems are culpable for either buying into this miserable deceit and/or folding for political reasons (A lot of good it did them, as they got hammered in the 2002 elections).

In addition, Dems in the Congress have been much too passive about the fact that this process of giving the President the authority to declare war, rather than insisting on the Constitution, which requires that the Congress itself declare war, rather than cede this authority to the President.

My point is that at the moment, the Democratic party is not in the position of CONTINUING THE DAILY CARNAGE AND KILLING OF CIVILAINS.

[pnutchuck]

7. No one even questioned "why iraq?" when he asked for this funding

Why Iraq? North Korea has wmd's thanks to Bush's war in Iraq. We were supposed to be going after known terrorist organizations. And what about Saudi Arabia producing 15 of the 19 terrorists? No one even asked "why Iraq?", they just rolled over and voted yes to destroy yet another country who was basically defenseless. We had effectively destroyed Saddam's military powers in Desert Storm. He has created more anti-American sentiment with his totalitarianism and fueled Muslim Extremist organizations. When he first started talking about Iraq in 2001, I knew it was trumped up bullshit. I was in the Army during Desert Storm and remember quite well the ruins in which it was left. For my representatives to only question Bush in the aftermath of the carnage, tells me that our leadership have turned into sheep and I'm not going to take a consolation prize. We should be disgusted by Bush and outraged at our own party for not protecting us better.

[ecstatic]

6. Of course there is blood on Dem hands

Most of our Senators voted for the resolution. They failed us miserably.

[mrgorth]

8. Let me ask you this

If you knew germans that were there during the war years would you say "it's ok as long as you weren't a 'party member'" or would they bear some collective guilt in your mind. To me, only the Weisse Rose can say they did everything. Same here, esp. those that voted for the war. How completely shameful.

[JaneDoughnut]

9. All of us bear some guilt

Most of us have unknowingly supported this radical new foreign policy, if not with our votes, than with our dollars. To turn the direction of this country around will require not only new leadership, but drastic changes in our individual lifestyles.

[Kerrytravelers]

10. I fully understand all the points that have been made.

I cna't argue with them because they make perfect sense. But, maybe it's just me still holding hope out since I fuly believe in the Democratic Party, I still hold those who voted for the Bush Regime in 2004 the ones stained with the blood of the innocent. I can forgive those who made a stupid vote in 2000 (and who have now repented!)

But, we all bear guilt by our lifestyles. My family has made the decidion to try, as much as possible, to kow the companies we buy from and where our money goes. It takes extra work, and we're not always perfect, but it feels so liberating to know that all of our dollars aren't going to line the pockets of those who would destroy this country.