The Democrats who were responsible for the Vietnam War

[WildEyedLiberal]

Many Americans took to the streets in the 1960s to protest an unnecessary war against a country that never attacked us. It's worth remembering which craven Democrats voted for that immoral and illegal war and helped get us stuck in the hellhole of Nam for ten years.

Among those who voted for the wasteful Vietnam War by voting YEA on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:

Eugene McCarthy

George McGovern

Oh sure, once it was obvious the war was unpopular, both of them conveeeeeniently became "anti-war." Well guess what? Too little too late! THEY helped get us there and therefore any backtracking against the war they did after the fact is immaterial and irrelevant. They clearly are responsible for the war. The blood of 58,000 American soldiers and countless Vietnamese civilians is on their hands. Big words after the fact don't erase the fact that they voted for the war! They gave a green light to the war and that must never be forgotten or forgiven.




(note: this post contains irony)

[LoZoccolo]

1. Recommended.

Eat it, whiners.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. You seem to be uncomfortable with people who have opinions different than yours

as though there were some kind of absolute standard that made you automatically right, and them automatically wrong and how dare they question that? While this might be possible in science, in politics such standards are rare, and always open to challenge. We went through this once before with our little debate over voting for primary candidates. Why so defensive?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Wrong.

Lose the straw man and we'll talk.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. "Eat it, whiners"

Ok, why did you say that, then?

[LoZoccolo]

24. Because people are using it to impose unrealistic demands on politicians.

Ones that do nothing for anyone. I don't know about anything else, but I've had enough of the Republicans' shit to put up with pests who aren't here to get anything done.

[politicasista]

27. Exactly n/t

[LoZoccolo]

41. Thanks, you give me a lot of support.

:hug:

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Holding politicians to higher standards seems to me a worthy endeavor.

My guess is that democrats who voted for the IWR who later help to bring the troops home will get all the credit in the world...when they actually bring the troops home.

[LoZoccolo]

30. No it isn't.

Try to guess why I'd say that. You will find great reward in the journey toward figuring it out.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. Condescending much?

Anyway, the reason is that you want to hold liberal votes just by being the less worse option than Republicans and which would allow Democratic politicians to do whatever they think they have to reach out to more conservative people. In other words, you only value liberals in so far as they vote, and the rest of the time you wish they'd shut up because you've internalized the Republican demonization of the word liberal, and mistakenly believe that the American people don't want the things that liberals want. It isn't so much that you disagree with liberals (because as you previously noted, you just want to win. If you thought liberal ideas and methods were winners, you might support them even if you disagreed).

But the problem is, liberal votes don't belong to you. There is no divine right of any politician to the votes of citizens. So what you have to do is convince liberals is that their only hope of not seeing the nation driven into a ditch is for God's sake, don't actually ask our politicians to take a bold stand on anything, or for anything else they think would make this country better. Just go along, and sit quietly while the same "reasonable" people whose unprincipled hackery has continued to fail to hold Bush accountable are the only voices heard. The perverse result is that the people most loyal get much less consideration than the people Democratic politicians can't count on.

These days, its harder than ever to convince liberals to sit quietly. They've been uppity. They nearly took out Joe Lieberman, the epitome of "reasonableness". Now they think they've gone and helped to restore the Democratic Party to power, just because they got their candidate as DNC chair, and spent a ton of money supporting challengers, and generally using people power to win elections. It undermines your whole stereotype of liberals as people who talk, but don't actually win like the "reasonable" politicians you admire.

There, I think that is an excellent dissection of your motives. Now, why don't you try to guess why I think holding politicians accountable is a good thing?

[WCGreen]

135. Or better yet...

Who cares.....

[mzmolly]

57. Higher standards are one thing - unattainable standards of constant

progressive perfection are another.

[jgraz]

109. 23 Senators and 133 Reps attained those "unnattainable" standards

by voting against the war. Not progressive perfection, just putting conscience above politics.

[mzmolly]

151. You confused my "unattainable" comment with the war vote. Here is what I said

is unattainable > "constant progressive perfection."

[dionysus]

99. and who the hell do think you are calling whiners?

what is the point you are trying to prove? a lot of people invested a lot of time trying to get Kerry elected. And guess what.. it DIDN'T happen. And you call US whiners!!! gimme a toke of what you're smoking bra...

and insulting the Liberals of the party makes you look like double the asshat

[LoZoccolo]

141. I'm not insulting liberals per se. n/t

[Cha]

148. You

eat it..you whine as much as anybody.

[beachmom]

2. Yep. Them and the majority of Americans who supported the

escalation of Vietnam in 1965. Hey didn't that warmonger bastard Fulbright also vote for the war? There's a special place in hell for a guy like that. So he had a few hearings and allowed veterans opposed to the war to speak out. That doesn't mean a DAMNED thing compared to his vote. :sarcasm:

[blm]

3. Even the best Democratic lawmakers are lied to by those they should trust.

When a Dem lawmaker can't trust the word of a Democratic president, well, shame on that president.

[beachmom]

4. Actually, google brings out some interesting history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._William_Fulbright

On August 7, 1964, a unanimous House of Representatives and all but two senators passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which led to the further escalation of the Vietnam War. Fulbright, who voted for the resolution, would later write:

Many Senators who accepted the Gulf of Tonkin resolution without question might well not have done so had they foreseen that it would subsequently be interpreted as a sweeping Congressional endorsement for the conduct of a large-scale war in Asia.

Gee, the guy is JUST spinning. He should have KNOWN.


Oh, and this article talks about Vietnam and Iraq:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=4338af85-2b35-4819-ae28-14197fc0c476

However, many of the congressional representatives who might be inclined to oppose the war are paralyzed by their vote for the Iraq resolution. They know that critics will call them hypocrites if they say something now.

But in this, too, they ignore history, which demonstrates that there is no dishonor in turning against a decision that was based on misleading information. For strength they can look to the example of U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not only voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, he introduced it, because Johnson asked him to. This did not stop him from becoming an initial lone dissenter as the U.S. sent more troops to Vietnam. In fact, he became increasingly furious as he realized that he was duped into helping escalate the conflict, and he opened hearings in 1968 to investigate the Tonkin incident.

It took tremendous courage to stand up to a president in the same political party during an era when being against a war was almost universally considered unpatriotic and counter-cultural.

Of course, that's all a bogus argument. Because, you know, since Fulbright voted for the war, he had ZERO moral capital to try to end it.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Parche]

5. lie

But they were lied to by LBJ

[beachmom]

7. Awful, isn't it. But, of course:

THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, since some hippies suspected it was bogus based on NO EVIDENCE, just a feeling, you see. That's the standards going on around here, so it's time to hold McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, and Fulbright accountable for their heinous congressional careers.

[Parche]

17. known

That is a touchy subject, back then a lot of things were not known,or classified
and much better to 'trump' or 'lie' to Congress and get away with it.

[beachmom]

19. Oh, I hope you understood my posts as being ironic

I most certainly don't blame those senators who voted yes on the Gulf of Tonkin, yet were incredibly vocal in ending the war. In the end, these men were the good guys, and nobody now condemns them for the Gulf of Tonkin vote. The blame rests squarely with LBJ and Nixon (for prolonging it needlessly).

[Parche]

44. oh yes

Yes yes yes, sometimes I miss the points!!!

Senators probably think they are doing the right thing, then get lied to , and feel like
crap for voting that way ...........

[1932]

133. Interestingly, the lie was only the day the US were shot at in the Gulf

according to Errol Morris's documentary about Robert McNamara, apparently the US were shot at a couple days before, but were so shocked, it took them days to confirm beyond a doubt that it had happened. Because they lost the moment of urgency, it seems they fabricated this second event to create outrage.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. It's a weak parralell... seems to me. Only two.....

...senators, Gruening and Morse, opposed Gulf of Tonkin. And the public sentiment for escalation post Gulf of T. was probably in excess of 90%.

By contrast, 22 senators saw thru the war propaganda re. Iraq, plus a majority of the DEM house caucus, plus about 40% of the general American public , plus about *90%* of the general public in the industrialized world.

The circumstances being so DISsimilar, comparing McCarthy, McGovern and Fulbright to such as Clinton and Lieberman (ugh!), if such is your intention, would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[beachmom]

9. No, she is referring to 2 (and I'll add Fulbright) famously anti-war

senators who also voted for the Gulf of Tonkin. There are now many anti-war senators who voted for the IWR. These are the people I have in mind. And if you read history, it shows that those who went along with that resolution were vocal in ending the war. And that's how it will be today. (Here's hoping Chuck Hagel actually DOES something in the Senate to back up the sentiment in his recent Op-Ed)

Obviously, Lieberman and Hillary are not anti-war, so they're not in the equation. I personally welcome Hillary coming out saying she made a mistake with the vote and supports bringing our troops home. I will thank her if she does that and count her as one more ally to end the war.

I'm not disillusioned enough to think Lieberman will EVER admit his error.

[Mass]

10. 10 did not vote, among which Teddy Kennedy.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98

[WildEyedLiberal]

80. Thanks, I was looking for a roll call but couldn't find one

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Here's a difference: The Democrats who voted this time around

could have learned from what happened with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The senators who voted on that resolution didn't have the benefit of such recent history to learn from.

[Mass]

11. "Remember the Maine"? This was not the first time a war was started on a lie.

and 1905 was only 60 years earlier.

[bobbie]

165. Most, if not all, wars are started on lies

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

[beachmom]

16. You're missing the point

The same Democrats who voted yes to the Gulf of Tonkin ENDED the Vietnam War. Yet there are people right on this board acting like Democrats who voted yes for the IWR should not be allowed to say "hey, I was wrong, let's end this war". That they are condemned and must sit in the corner and be stoned by purists. This is not how the war was ended in Vietnam, and this foolish argument will not end the Iraq War today.

History puts those arguments on its head. Anyone anti-war should be welcomed by us. Period.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. Ding ding ding, we have a winnah ovah heah

Thanks for making my point in 5 sentences.

[Uncle Joe]

72. How many Americans knew the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie,

the minute LBJ uttered the words as compared to aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger?

I am just your average Joe, but I had already read about the tubes not being fit for the purpose Bush claimed. I had read about the other disclaimers as well only to hear Bush/Cheney cite them as absolutes. So if I and others could see all these red flags, why didn't our Senators? Furthermore if Bush would so obviously lie during the State of the Union, how could he be trusted with the IWR?

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. Bush lied about the yellowcake uranium in the 2003 SOTU address

Two months after the IWR vote - so obviously the yellowcake scandal had no bearing on the vote.

Many American people did not want to escalate war in Vietnam, either. There was a committed anti-war minority in 1964 just as there was in 2002. It's not like everyone was hoodwinked into thinking Vietnam was a great idea and there was no anti-war movement.

The point is, if you're going to argue that Democratic Senators' efforts to end the war should be dismissed because they voted for IWR, then you must also similarly reject the anti-war campaigns of both McCarthy and McGovern, since by that logic they "should have known" and therefore their later anti-war positions are somehow made invalid.

[Uncle Joe]

81. I first became aware of Bush's lie during the State of the Union, however

I had read of the contradictory evidence weeks or months before this. I imagine if Bush was speaking in absolutes to us, he was doing the same to the Senate. This contradictory evidence had been out for a while, the State of the Union was just the most obvious blatant lie.

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. I'm just saying I don't think the uranium was part of the debate when IWR happened

Remember, there were five months between the IWR vote and the invasion of Iraq. I think some people here think that the IWR passed the Senate and the next day we were bombing Iraq. Many of the Senators who voted yes on IWR because they believed Powell's testimony and because they wanted to get inspectors in there used the next five months to urge Bush to keep his word and go through the UN, like the IWR mandated he do. The yellowcake and the increasingly nasty ultimatums given by Bush to Saddam in the early months of 2003 all occured despite many Democrats speaking out against invasion. Of course, the Downing Street Minutes show us that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq come hell or high water. Bush abruptly pulled the inspectors out in early March and commenced bombing in clear violation of the understood resolution, and the blame for starting the war thus lies squarely on his shoulders.

[Uncle Joe]

85. I believe, it was the aluminum tubes which jumped out at me

I had read some report stating they were not suited for the purpose Bush claimed in the State of the Union, but this article was written long before that date. I don't remember the exact date I first read about the dispute over the tubes, but it seems like it was before the IWR vote.

I agree with you on the point that Bush would have went to war regardless, but the way I look at it, if the Democrats could have stayed unified and convinced a handful of *moderate Republicans to vote it down with them, we would have a Democrat, probably Kerry in the White House today.


* I know, a snowball's chance in Death Valley, but even if they had not and the Democrats had all voted against it, Kerry would have been in a much stronger position in 2004.

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. You're likely right about that, I'm afraid

I mean, I'm not going to argue that IWR was a good vote at all - hell KERRY as well as Edwards, Biden, and Harkin have all said "it was a bad vote and I was wrong to vote for it." But, I understand why they voted the way they did at the time the vote was called. It was a horrible gotcha vote, a damned if you do and damned if you don't vote, which of course was precisely what BushCo wanted. Sigh.

But, and this was the real point of my OP, as mistaken as the IWR vote may have been, it's water under the bridge now, and I support any Democrat who has said "we need to get out of Iraq" and is offering a credible plan to do so. I think Kerry and Edwards should be given consideration for their plans to end the war today, not constantly castigated for a four year old vote that had no real world impact on Bush's decision to go to war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. The anti-war minority was MUCH smaller in 1964 than in 2002

MUCH smaller. It was basically Marxists and members of traditionally pacifist groups, such as the Quakers. There were NO mass demonstrations against the Vietnam War before about 1965, and opposition didn't reach the level of opposition we now see against the Iraq War until after 1968.

[beachmom]

76. The IWR was in October 2002. The lies in the SOTU were not exposed

until way after the vote. I also read SOME skepticism, although mostly about a tie between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Yet (call me an idiot, if you want) I was concerned about WMD in Iraq and thought getting U.N. weapons inspecters back in was a good idea. I felt the whole thing was "speak softly, and carry a big stick". And it really was, until Bush SUDDENLY ordered the weapons inspecters out of Iraq and attacked the country. It was a betrayal to the members of Congress, the international community, the American people, and even the Iraqi people, because those damned inspections weren't complete. This is just the way I remember it unfolding.


Edited to add: okay, slightly freaked out by WEL's similar answer above. I guess great minds think alike.

[bobbie]

164. Yup, twas a big fib by the big fibber

Gee, who knew that Lyndon Johnson, a man who helped murder President Kennedy and led the cover up, would *lie*.

[dionysus]

100. nope, not missing the point

Kerry and Edwards have admitted the error, many Dems still won't

[beachmom]

102. Oh, agreed -- more should say they're wrong, and help try to

get us out of there as soon as possible.

[PassingFair]

126. You go and sell that to the 600,000 DEAD IRAQI'S

and 3000 DEAD AMERICANS that their
vote authorized.

It was a CYNICAL vote.
They thought it was a WIN/WIN
vote for them.

If bush had pulled off "shock and awe",
we'd be ROLLING in stolen oil and we'd
all be drivin' our SUV's into the SUNSET
right now.

The more likely version, which we are
experiencing...could be sloughed off
to "bad intel" or "they were tricked".

But we KNOW too much. The PEOPLE
knew. WE WATCHED as Colin Powell was
FORCED to take his BULLSHIT documents to the UN.
We SAW Scott Ritter rail-roaded. We READ
Joe Wilson's report. We KNEW about the ALUMINUM TUBES
and the WEATHER TRAILERS.
They WENT ALONG WITH IT because they
didn't understand the power of the
"internets".

They have blood on their hands.

The republicans are paying at the hands of the voters.


Our wrong voting dems should be held accountable in some capacity too.

[pnwmom]

176. The October IWR vote was a win-win situation for the Bush administration,

not the Democrats.

And the war would have gone on, regardless of that vote. Why? Because the American public was still strongly backing Bush in his "war against terrorism" and still reeling from the shock of 9/11. If the Democrats had voted solidly against the IWR we would lost the House and Senate by even greater margins.

And two months later, with their new huge majorities in the House and the Senate, the Republicans would have easily passed their new, condition-free IWR.

[SaveElmer]

13. Very apt...and accurate analogy...

You are about to get flamed unmercifully...which usually happens when hypocrisy is pointed out!

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Why is it hypocrisy?

Why are we bound by what Democrats thought of George McGovern 30 years ago? How do you know if McGovern was in the senate today, and did the same thing, we wouldn't feel the same way about him as we do about some of the other senators who voted for the IWR.

[beachmom]

18. Because people put McGovern up as a hero now

And the guy VOTED FOR THE WAR. But he had the good sense to realize it was wrong, turned against it, and be an incredible dove. Yet the purists don't even want to hear from Democrats who voted yes to the IWR, even though many of them are very anti-war and want to bring the troops home. They're ON OUR SIDE, but that's not good enough, which is just plain foolish thinking, and is not backed up by history.

[Pyrzqxgl]

71. a lot of us did the same thing back in the 1960s

I went Peace and Freedom for awhile after Bobby and came back to the Democrats because I realized electing Nixon would make things worse (which it did). I remember arguing against McGovern for his Gulf of Tonkin vote. I was wrong then and I think I'd be wrong now to argue against any anti-war Senator who was originally pro war. Remember Wayne Morse who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was once a Republican Senator who changed parties and became a liberal Democrat.

[SaveElmer]

28. Not the point the original OP was reacting too...

There have been many here that are not prepared to give John Kerry his due based on his current work to end the Iraqi War because he is one of the ones who voted for the IWR...even though his vote was not a vote for war.

Those very same people seem to be able to get by George McGoverns vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and credit him with his later efforts to get the US out of VietNam.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. Exactly

Thanks for getting it SaveElmer... you can always be counted on as a voice of rationality round these parts...

By the way, did you know you're part of my "tag team"? :rofl:

[dionysus]

101. if you two think you're a little mini club of clever...

man are you making asses of yourselves!

[SaveElmer]

104. I wasn't aware that disagreeing with the prevailing DU sentiment...

Constituted "Making an Ass of ourselves"

I'm not aware of any gratuitous insulting or disparaging of character on my part of anyone I have been conversing with.

Funny how the 5 or 10 percent of folks here that don't move in lockstep with every prevailing left wing wind that blows through here are accused of being some sort of organized cabal...yet the 90% of DU'ers who constitute a hallelujah chorus to every one of these are not!

It is a characteristic of extremes at both ends of the political spectrum to look at any dissent from their orthodoxy as a personal assault, and those that so disagree are immedietely cast as the enemy!

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. Hilarious, isn't it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

117. You're the one making an ass of yourself

I'm a Kerry supporter. SaveElmer is a Hillary Clinton supporter. That we are some sooper-secret "mini club" of any sort is probably the most hysterical thing I've heard in a long time.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beachmom]

21. Um, it's a mirror post from yesterday that condemned Dems

who voted yes for the IWR but are now anti-war. That only people who did not vote for the IWR (and mostly, weren't even in office) are allowed to offer solutions to get us out of Iraq, even if the "yes" Dems offer ideas to get our troops out FASTER. History is sometimes a good teaching method. I can vouch that WEL is very much so a lib and fiercely against this terrible war.

[dogman]

35. But there were fewer Dems fooled this time.

And some of them because they listened to
Snip>"people who did not vote for the IWR (and mostly, weren't even in office) are allowed to offer solutions to get us out of Iraq."
and some of those "people" were very much liberals who were fiercely against this terrible war. It's tooo bad some of those who are now against the war weren't listening until the polls got their attention. That's a reason "professional" politicians hold little appeal for me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. You could say the same of McGovern or McCarthy

Which is my whole point. If "voting for it" is an albatross that one must wear around one's neck forever and a day, then you'd think it would be mentioned more when people talk about the "anti-war" campaigns of both men, in 1968 and 1972. But, it's not, because people then listened to any voice speaking out against the war without applying the ludicrous test of "but they voted for it, therefore their word means nothing!" that liberals and progressives seem so keen to do today.

[dogman]

67. Who warned McGovern or McCarthy?

The IWR supporters had good advice that they ignored. Why wasn't Kennedy or Feingold duped this time? The most difficult for me to understand was Kerry. He had testified in the Fullbright hearings and had even voted against the Gulf War. Understand, this is not a litmus test for me, I believe in redemption. I am simply pointing out a difference and responding to an inference above. But everything weighs differently on different peoples scales. I am more disturbed by those who have not admitted they were wrong, such as Lieberman.

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. That's the thing, neither side voted as a bloc with a uniform reason

As Kerry explained his vote at the time, he trusted Colin Powell's testimony about WMDs in Iraq and voted to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Even the nay votes were for different reasons - perhaps some were more (rightly as it turned out) suspicious that Bush would NOT follow the provisions set forth for him. Byrd voted against it solely because he doesn't believe Congress can authorize force without a formal declaration of war. Kerry's trust was clearly misplaced and he has since said as much, and acknowledged that his vote was wrong.

In 1964 McNamara delivered false testimony very akin to Powell's which convinced many liberal Senators, including McCarthy and McGovern and Fulbright, that Vietnam was a threat, even though it clearly was not. Of course, what's clear in hindsight and what's clear in the heat of the moment are two very different things.

Since it has been proven that the IWR was built on lies, it is the moral responsibility of those who voted yes to acknowledge that. Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Harkin and a few others have acknowledged that it was a bad vote and the case for war was based on lies. But honestly, this whole debate is dumb, because we are IN Iraq NOW, and we would be in Iraq regardless of the results of the IWR vote. If any Democrat wishes to be taken credibly now, he or she must confront the reality of the situation in Iraq and come up with a plan to extract the troops.

[beachmom]

79. Kerry wanted U.N. weapons inspecters back in Iraq

He was ASSURED by Colin Powell that Saddam had WMD and that they would do this thing right, and NOT rush to war. You know, something happened between Vietnam and the Iraq War, and it was called 9/11 -- yes, the president has played that awful day to death, but go back to 2002, OCTOBER 2002, which was right after the one year anniversary of 9/11 (I still remember it). People were scared, and we sure as hell didn't want WMD in the hands of terrorists. That was the context of the vote, and I understand why he voted that way -- but now that we know SO MUCH MORE, it is obvious that the president manipulated intelligence AND betrayed the spirit of the IWR that Kerry has now disavowed his vote and is fighting like hell to get our troops home.

So, no, I don't think this is the same. PLUS, Kerry trusted Powell who had learned the lessons of Vietnam. With Powell in the government, Kerry thought they would never make the same mistakes LBJ made. But it ends up that Powell was cast aside and disregarded. There was no way Kerry could know all of this at the time.

[Zodiak]

87. I forgave Kerry a long time ago...

when he finally realized that he was no longer part of a functional government (about 6 mo. after election 2004) and started to fight back. He's a damned good senator, so it is easy to forgive him.

However, and the people (66%) who were for the war or supported the Democrats when they voted for the war need to know this, there was plenty of information available before the war that would convince a person that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaida, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had just changed his oil sales to euros (article after article, in fact). Millions took to the strets on much more than a hunch, but a certitude that the American people were being lied to, and our Senators. When one is being lied to and asked for power, one does not just hand it over or even enable a single step in the process.

Those that voted for the IWR made two mistakes:

1. They trusted people that should not have been trusted.
2. They neglected to do their homework.

Sure, the stakes were high. But that is what our elected leaders are supposed to do. They are supposed to do their homework and trust their own informed judgement precisely when the stakes are high. They are not supposed to fall hero worship with Colin Powell, a man with a checquered past of covering up lies to preserve the mythology of US moral superiority.

This is why some people cannot forgive. War is the most serious thing one can vote for, and the people who voted for the war spent months and months in blindness afterwards, marginalizing those that had known better from the beginning. It left a bad taste in people's mouths, but make no mistake, despite the complaining, those people will still do the right thing when the stakes are high.

I will forgive any Democratic rep who gives up on neoliberalism and comes home to the People they are supposed to represent. This includes those that are calling for a troop withdrawal, but not those that still wish to continue tilting this windmill and subjecting more American soldiers and American dollars to the meatgrinder of our folly. Those representatives can only be willfully ignorant or wish to pander to American jingoism to ensure relection. That is not the mark of a leader.

My opinion, of course.

[Mass]

25. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution increased the presence of troops dramatically.

While it was not the beginning of the presence of troops in VietNam, it was only after 1965 that the troops escalated/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vietnam.htm

...
Total US Military Personnel in Vietnam Date Total Personnel
31 December 1960 900
31 December 1961 3,200
31 December 1962 11,500
31 December 1963 16,300
31 December 1964 23,300
31 December 1965 184,300
31 December 1966 425,300
31 December 1967 485,600
31 December 1968 536,100
31 December 1969 474,400
31 December 1970 335,800
9 June 1971 250,900
...

(Remember, Nixon came to power in January 1969, so the majority of the troops were sent between the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Nixon's inauguration).

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

23. Brilliant post.Only those who have no appreciation for history

will not appreciate it! Or those who do not understand the political process.Unfortunately, there are a lot of those.And it is really too bad that they choose to form a circular firing squad. What is going to become of these people when the war is over? Some don't have any other issues.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

31. And I don't plan on voting for any of them either

Point? Buehler?

[Tom Joad]

32. McGovern never proposed "benchmarks for success".

McGovern opposed the war much sooner than many Americans. In the mid-60's, way before the polls showed a majority favoring withdraw.

The original post contains historical inaccuracies.

[Mass]

38. It actually does not - It states that ...

They voted for the Tonkin War Resolution, which is true.

By the standard of some on this board (which you are not), the only thing that matters is the IWR vote and they would never vote for somebody who voted for it (everything else equal).

By this standard, they probably would also oppose McGovern and McCarthy.

This said, your opinion seems to be deeper than that, in which case you do not fit the profile the OP is aiming at, but some people on this board do.

[Tom Joad]

33. McGovern's 1972 platform did not call for more troops in Vietnam.

Unlike Kerry's call for more troops in Iraq.

McGovern did not call for the Vietnam war to be managed better, but that it was wrong and immoral.
Kerry has Never said that.

[Mass]

39. I do not know anybody except McCain asking for more troops.

As for Kerry, he has called this war wrong and immoral and I do not think that his main point is that the war should have been manager better.

Actually, McGovern profile is close to Murtha, I imagine. The comparison with Kerry (that you are making) is probably a poor one.

[Tom Joad]

42. Kerry's campaign in 2004 called for more troops.

[Mass]

43. And of course, you can offer a link to that.

I remember hearing him say that they needed to be more troops in the military, idea that is debatable, but I do not remember him saying more troops in Iraq.

I may be mistaken, of course, but I would be happy to see a link. (I heard this story more than once, but I've never seen a source of him saying that).

[Tom Joad]

46. 40 thousand MORE Troops. A big difference from McGovern's platform

Remember also that by this time the Iraq war was already unpopular. Not to mention an illegal, insane act of aggression.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a3ixw0UrP_u4&refer=us

Kerry Calls for More Troops in Iraq, Bolstering U.S. Military

By Jay Newton-Small

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he would ``modernize our military to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.

``I make this simple pledge,'' Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to veterans and military families in Green Bay, Wisconsin. ``If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces - on active duty and as veterans.''

The extra troops are needed in Iraq to ease pressure on soldiers and National Guard troops battling insurgents in the Middle Eastern country. Half of the 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists, while the other 20,000 would be combat troops, Kerry said.
_______________________________
Kerry begin to call for withdraw of troops... slowly, in 2005.

[Mass]

48. Thanks. I never saw this.

Anyway, I guess we are speaking of now, and not of two years ago, but it is always interesting to see things I had not seen.

I understand that Kerry's position is not yours. You have always been very clear and principled on this issue.

I think that, as it stands, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Harkin, and a few others are probably the most advanced in the US Senate, but I wonder why nobody has taken the same stand as McGovern? I wonder what stand Sanders will take. It will be interesting and I hope he will bring some life to the Senate.

[ProSense]

49. That's nonsense! Kerry never called for a troop increase in Iraq!

Kerry and Edwards Reunite on Believe in America Tour with a Pledge to Keep the Faith with Those Who Serve

8/5/2004 12:18:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Allison Dobson of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800, Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Joining up after separate campaign swings on their post-convention "Believe in America" tour, John Kerry and John Edwards Thursday pledged to always keep the faith with those who wear the uniform of the United States.

With America's security facing new threats in the post 9/11 world and our troops stretched too thin, Kerry and Edwards vowed to build a stronger, more secure America by modernizing the military and ensuring our troops, veterans and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Kerry and Edwards remarks came before a large crowd of veterans and supporters assembled to see Kerry and Edwards off on the next leg of their post-convention, cross-country journey. Following their rally, the Democrats joined their families and boarded the train that will take them from the gateway to the West all the way to Arizona.

"We have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons," Kerry said at St. Louis's Union Station. "Today, our military is overextended and our troops are stretched too thin. The administration's answer has been to put band-aids on the problem. They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a back door draft. They have extended tours of duty, delayed retirements and prevented enlisted personnel from leaving the service. This is not the way to treat America's finest."

Addressed in their new book "Our Plan for America," Kerry and Edwards have a comprehensive plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats we face and to provide our soldiers and their families with the support they need.

As Commander-in-Chief, Kerry will add 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts, and he will double the Army's Special Forces capability so they are able to fulfill the critical role they play in America's armed forces. He will also complete the process of transforming our military by equipping, educating and training our troops for the 21st century.

"And while we strengthen our ability to fight terrorism at home and abroad, we will do more to honor the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families," Kerry said. "Our troops and their families are asking for help, and as Harry Truman once said right here in St. Louis, 'We should listen to these voices...there is in them the wisdom of courage and the hope of a new day for the world.'"

Kerry and Edwards will keep faith with those who serve America and their families with a new Military Family Bill of Rights. This bill of rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment.

"We need to do this for our military families - and for all Americans," Kerry said. "We need to honor the values that make us stronger at home and bring us together as one America: faith and family, service and sacrifice, responsibility and opportunity for all."

Now seven days into this post-convention, cross-country tour, Kerry has traveled over 1,700 miles and stormed through the battleground states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri, while Edwards has made an additional sweep through the South with stops in Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee. Along the way, they have been met by record, October-sized crowds that have braved rainstorms and summer heat to hear more about the Kerry-Edwards plans to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

The train will take Kerry and Edwards over 1,800 miles, making stops in Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman once used one of the cars - No. 403 - in the train that will take Kerry and Edwards West.

A NEW MILITARY TO MEET NEW THREATS

Today, our military is overextended and our troops are overburdened. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, they will (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America's Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of transformation, (4) add homeland security as an additional National Guard mission, and (5) enact a Military Family Bill of Rights to relieve the burden on military families. The Kerry- Edwards Military Family Bill of Rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment.

Expand America's Active Duty Forces. As president, John Kerry will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces. He will:

-- Add 40,000 Troops To The Active Duty Army To Prevent And Prepare For Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including "Stop Loss" orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

Double America's Army Special Forces Capability and Increase Other Specialized Personnel John Kerry and John Edwards recognize the critical role of the Special Forces and other specialized personnel play in America's military. As president, he will:

-- Double The Army's Special Forces Capability By The End Of His First Term. As part of the 40,000 new troops, John Kerry will double Army Special Forces capabilities in his first four years as president. His plan calls for adding 3,500 active duty and 1,400 reserve Army Special Forces personnel.

-- Increase Active-Duty and Reserve Civil Affairs Personnel. As president, John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel - 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today's missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs skills that are needed in post-conflict situations.

Complete The Process of Transformation John Kerry and John Edwards are committed to building an American military that leverages technology, training and education across the spectrum of conflict, for every mission performed by the active duty, National Guard or Reserve. To advance this transformation, John Kerry will:

--- Invest In The Right Technologies. As president, John Kerry will focus defense investment in advanced communications and information technologies, command, control, and intelligence technologies, precision weapons that can produce lethal and non- lethal effects, and data fusion technologies to enhance situational awareness and improve intelligence assessments.

-- Improve Counter-Proliferation Capabilities. As president, John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter- proliferation units that are trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities.

more...

[Mass]

52. The piece Tom Joad has posted says just that. I imagine they may

be mistaken and in any case, it it is true, it did not last long given that his plan at the point of the election was calling for a large withdrawal in the first 6 months, but I would be curious to see the transcript of the speech. The Bloomberg article is so contrary to what I remember.

[lillilbigone]

54. Jay Newton-Small wrote a false story.

Kerry did call for increasing the size of the military. NOT IN IRAQ.

Jay Newton-Small lied to you.

[Mass]

56. Did I miss the sarcasm?

[lillilbigone]

58. I found the real facts in 5 seconds with google

And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops -- not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations -- anti-terrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
Kerry acceptance speech

[Mass]

60. Thanks. That is what I remembered.

However, I have seen many people say the same thing Tom Joad posted, and, until now, I had never seen the source.

[beachmom]

83. That is incorrect, sir. Kerry called for 40,000 additional troops in our

standing army, but NOT in Iraq. I still say that's a good idea, as our armed forces are stretched thin, and I don't think it's right that the National Guard is having to go over to Iraq multiple times(think of Katrina, when a huge portion of the Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq and not there to help out). Also, your time frame is all off. 1972 certainly doesn't equal 2004. 2004 equals 1966 -- it wasn't until 1968 and the Tet Offensive that people realized this war was a loser. I believe 2006 equals 1968. God help us that we don't wait until the equivalent to 1973 (2011) to withdraw all of our troops.

[Tom Joad]

34. Tens of millions marched on the Streets opposing the Iraq war before it started.

Where was Kerry???

He put his faith in Bush.

Millions of us knew better.

[politicasista]

36. If you are so concerned about the war

Why don't you get behind those that are trying to end it rather than letting ONE person that caused all this get away with his lies, let alone off the hook?

No, because it shows that you care more about playing chess games and using a vote that wouldn't have mattered as a litimus test than the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That won't bring the soldiers home any faster will it?


BTW: You also missed the OP's main point.

[Tom Joad]

40. Dennis Kucinich is working to end this war.

Jim McGovern (no blood relation to George) is working to end this war by calling for defunding the war.

Cindy Sheehan is working to end this war.
George McGovern is working to end this war.

Kerry is still doing too little, too late. He still wants to fund the war (George and others worked to defund the Vietnam war, and that is how it stopped).

[LittleClarkie]

37. You forgot WWII

(and Poland)

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. I always forget Poland

:spank:

:P

[depakid]

45. Not Wayne Morse of Oregon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse

[wyldwolf]

47. god damned war mongerers!

[David Zephyr]

51. Read the Pentagon Papers. The original sin was with Allen Dulles & Eisenhower.

The groundwork for the Vietnam War was long in place before JFK became president.

You are right in that it was LBJ who took it to a full blown war.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. True, but Gulf of Tonkin was the excuse to escalate it into a full blown war

We didn't have the draft before Tonkin.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. Factually wrong--there WAS a draft before Tonkin

I knew I remembered hearing of people being drafted in the 1950s, and sure enough, Wikipedia bears me out:

The wartime draft was extended by Congress, but it expired in 1947. In 1948 the draft was re-instated. It was expanded by the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951, in response to the manpower needs caused by the Korean War.
In the first and only instance of U.S. conscription during a major peacetime period, the draft continued on a more limited basis during the late 1950's and early 1960's. While a far fewer percentage of eligible males were conscripted compared to war periods, draftees by law served in the U.S. Army for two years. Elvis Presley and Willie Mays were two of the most famous people drafted during this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#The_Cold_War_and_the_Korean_War

[mzmolly]

61. One of the best "ironic" posts ever.

:toast:

[Cameron27]

65. This analogy doesn't fit, IMHO

but even if it did, the Tonkin Resolution should have been a hard lesson learned.

John Kerry was vocal enough against Vietnam, why not apply the same vigilance towards bush and Iraq? Bush is certainly not more trustworthy than LBJ.

If we apply Vietnam as the standard, then those who voted yes on the IWR are much more culpable than those who voted for the Tonkin Resolution simply because they had the advantage of hindsight.

edited to note that this was already stated in post 8 & I completely missed it the first time.

[ProSense]

69. By that standard Clark is complicit!

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY

BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

The IWR was a vote to continue inspections because Bush was building a case for war.

Kerry:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

The threat wasn't imminent!

Kerry:

...But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Here is what Bush did:

He told a lie in the SOTU in January 2003:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Then he sent a letter and report to Congress which included lies and false information.

Nothing was going to stop Bush from going to war. He had the War Powers Resolution. He had the a 2001 resolution to pursue the 9/11 terrorists (the same one he claimed authorized him to spy on Americans). He had a war budget for Afghanistan. He had the country believing that Iraq had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Some people enlisted to go fight in Iraq for those very reasons!

Bush was going to war no matter what. The IWR was to hold him to inspections and to agree that he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort!

Bush lied!

[Cameron27]

82. No Clark was referring

to the Levin Amendment.

Here's what Clark had to say about which resolution he supported:

"Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations. But I warned against giving him a blank check. I would never have supported the resolution as it ultimately emerged."

The only amendment or resolution that mentioned the UN was the Levin amendment. . He also mentions it by name in a video linked at the site.

http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/clark_and_iraq_war_resolution.php

[SOS]

66. "They gave a green light to the war"

The US assumed responsibility for training the South Vietnamese Army in 1955 after Dien Bien Phu.
The first US serviceman was killed in 1959.
The US started using Agent Orange in 1962.
Diem was assasinated with US help in 1963.

The Senate was swayed to an 88-2 vote by McNamara's false testimony.
The cold war was at it's peak. The US was in a proxy war with Russia in Vietnam for years before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
The Democrats did not "get us there". Eisenhower "got us there" 10 years earlier.

Comparing that vote to the IWR is absurd.

The invasion of Iraq was a unilateral, unprovoked attack against a soveriegn nation.

The Senators in 1964 believed that the the North had attacked the Maddox.

What exactly did the yes-voting Senators in 2002 believe? That Hussein masterminded 9/11? That he could nuke London in 45 minutes? That he had a slingshot?

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. "They were swayed by McNamara's false testimony"

And most yea voters in 2002 were swayed by Powell's false testimony that Iraq definitely had WMDs and that this vote would provide a means for the US to pressure the UN to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Senators in 2002 believed that Saddam had WMDs, and so did 90% of the American people.

Before Tonkin, we had very small-scale specialized troop commitment. After Tonkin, we had general infantry sent in and a draft to swell the ranks.

It is simply not credible to argue that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was somehow not responsible for Vietnam but IWR was responsible for Iraq. Of course, if one wants to be honest, one would acknowledge that neither resolution was responsible for either war, but that's not the game most here at DU want to play, so be it.

[SOS]

156. Timeline...

The IWR was in October 2002. Powell presented his cartoons at the UN in February 2003.
Hussein wrote to Kofi Annan in September 2002, inviting unconditional UN inspections.
If indeed 90% of the American people believed that Iraq had WMD, then 90% were oblivious to Iraq's history from 1990-2002.
Iraq was smashed in 1991. Iraq was strangled by sanctions for ten years and was bombed incessantly in 1998-1999 in Operation Desert Fox.
People forget Clinton's massive bombing campaign which destroyed 450 targets. The result of the McCain/Lieberman Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Even with oil, Iraq had a GDP smaller than Guatemala in 2001.
As a nation state, Iraq posed no threat to the US.

McNamara unequivocally told the Senate that Russian-backed North Vietnamese had attacked the Maddox.
How can that even remotely be compared to Bush's transparent nonsense about aluminum tubes, yellow cake and a balsa wood UAV powered with a lawn mower engine?

I agree that neither resolution was "responsible" for what came after, but Tonkin escalated a cold war conflict, it did not result in an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state.
At least Johnson had the good sense to leave the Presidency.

Of course that led to pro-war Humphrey getting hammered by Nixon in 1968.
A lesson for us in 2008.

[leftofthedial]

68. I won't support either of them in the primaries for the 08 election

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. At least you're consistent

;)

[jgraz]

70. But *WHY* did McGovern and McCarthy vote for war?

Actually, I don't really care. But I do care that Kerry, Edwards, et al. have never been able to offer a believable reason as to why they cast their vote for the IWR.

They had the same or better information than we did, and we knew that W would use that authority to go to war. Why didn't they?
They had the same or better information than we did, and we knew that W's supposed evidence was crap. Why didn't they?

We were out protesting this war before it started. Why weren't they?

My belief is that they voted for the IWR to cover their asses politically, knowing exactly what they were doing and whose lives they were risking. To me that means that they share the responsibility for this war and everything that has resulted from it.

If one of these guys gets the nomination, I'll work hard to get them elected -- but I plan on working just as hard to make sure that never happens.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Bravo!!

Well said and I'm with you 100% on this.

[Zodiak]

88. Spot on...

and I think your support strategy is sound, as well.

[dailykoff]

89. At least it wasn't because they planned to run for president!

Oh wait. . . .

[TayTay]

91. There were reasons to vote to get the inspectors in

Sen. Kerry had voted for the use of force in other circumstances. He voted for the action in Somalia as a humanitarian effort to help a starving population avoid catastrophe. He voted for the intervention in Bosnia, which actually did work out and did help to stop the genocide occuring over there.

I know that truth doesn't actually matter to a lot of people or affect their worldview, but it is possible that some people voted yes on the resolution because it required the President to do certain things, which Bush, after the fact, refused to do.

The resolution, as passed:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Btw, where on Capitol Hill did you work? How do you know what intelligence the Senators saw or didn't see. When Bush issued that order, following 9/11 that restricted all but 8 members of Congress from seeing most classified intelligence, what affect did that have on the vote? On what information got to the individual Senators?

Oh, and what affect did the Presidential signing statement have on this? There is a legitimate argument, upheld by most Constitutional scholars, that the President has the right to take action when he deems there is an 'immediate threat' to the United States. (In fact that was the subject of another vote, just the day before this IWR vote.) There is an arugment to be made that this whole IWR vote was window-dressing and that Bush would have gone to war with or without Congressional approval by interpreting the Constitution to say that he was fulfilling his role as Commander-in-Chief and keeping the nation safe from an 'imminent threat.'

You state that you knew what Congress knew, can you then explain this?

[jgraz]

96. How do we know what Congress knew? Cuz they told us.

See, there's this thing called a "floor speech", and it tends to happen quite a bit before a big vote like this. Let's take a look at one, shall we?

"Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations."

"I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time."

"These litanies of various justifications ... set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems."

-- Sen. Russ Feingold, Oct 9th, 2002

Go on, read the whole speech. Feingold gives example after example of BushCo lying about Iraq. He raises concern after concern about the lack of a mission plan, the lack of an exit strategy and the lack of any assurance that the military had the resources to fight this war. Feingold isn't debating this resolution as if it's a bargaining chip. He knows the result of its passage: that the US will go to war against Iraq.

Feingold knew. He had access to the same information as the rest of them, and he knew. It was so obvious that he was able to call it right down the line: the deception, the flimsy evidence, the lack of planning, the overextension of the military and on and on and on. He even went so far as to imply that the administration had other countries in their sights once they were through with Iraq.

He wasn't the only one. Twenty-two other Senators and 133 Representatives voted against this resolution, many of them voicing similar concerns to those that Feingold raised. They knew. They saw what this resolution meant for our country and for the men and women who would have to fight this war. They knew and they tried to stop it.

So ask yourself, how is it that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc were not able to see this? Are they simply that much stupider than Feingold, Boxer or Kennedy? Are they just a lot more trusting than Dick Durbin, Paul Sarbanes or Robert Byrd? Or was there something else at work here?

And while you're trying to answer that question, ponder this: we often forget that in October, 2002, the Senate was under Democratic control. Had the Democrats stood up and spoken with one voice, the resolution would have gone down to defeat and this war just might have been avoided altogether.

But we'll never know, because Kerry, Edwards, Clinton and others could not -- or would not -- see what Russ Feingold and many of us so clearly saw: that Congress was handing its power to declare war over to a sociopath. With his congressional permission slip in hand, Bush proceeded to renig on his promise of U.N. cooperation, kick out the weapons inspectors and plunge us headlong into a brand new, longer and more frightening national nightmare.

Just like we all knew he would.

[ProSense]

108. Yes read the whole thing:

Senator Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, 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. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. 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.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

Snip...

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Senator Kerry on October 9, 2002:

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

Snip…

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq . None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Snip…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Snip...

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Snip...

That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

Page: S10173
Page: S10174

And look at at how the votes played out on this list of amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359


Bush told a lie in the SOTU in January 2003:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Then he sent a letter and report to Congress which included lies and false information.

Nothing was going to stop Bush from going to war. He had the War Powers Resolution. He had the a 2001 resolution to pursue the 9/11 terrorists (the same one he claimed authorized him to spy on Americans). He had a war budget for Afghanistan. He had the country believing that Iraq had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Some people enlisted to go fight in Iraq for those very reasons!

Bush was going to war no matter what. The IWR was to hold him to inspections and to agree that he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort!

Bush lied!

[jgraz]

111. And yet...

somehow Feingold and 22 other senators managed to make the right vote when it came down to it.

[mzmolly]

115. And, if Feingold would have had his demands met, he would have voted

for it as well.

[mzmolly]

112. This post deserves it's own thread.

Well done, thanks! :hi:

On edit, you should journal!

[Clarkie1]

94. You are 110% correct!

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

110. They don't sit on the internet perusing blogs. "They" live in an insulated

world for much of their years/lives. "They" have said they believed the Presidents "last resort" and "inspections first" mumbo jumbo. "THEY," were lied to, of course.

If one of these guys gets the nomination, I'll work hard to get them elected -- but I plan on working just as hard to make sure that never happens.

I have much respect for that position, I think you are entitled to your beliefs about why they voted for the questionable resolution. I think they wanted to be "certain" that Bush wasn't right about Saddam, and they did urge Bush to let the inspections continue. I believe they voted for inspections, and war as a last resort.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Peace

[jgraz]

114. Hey -- respectful disagreement! Nice!!

Seriously, this is the way we should be talking about this. And we should be talking about it. It's a completely legitimate question to ask if a vote for the IWR disqualifies someone to be president.

My reasoning comes down to this: even for the Senators who have "expressed regret" and "taken responsibility" for their vote (whatever that means), they still owe us a credible explanation as to how 23 of their colleagues were able to see through the lies of BushCo and vote against this dangerous course. Feingold had his floor speech, Durbin tried to remove "continuing threat" from the bill, Byrd tried to filibuster, etc, etc, etc. All of these senators knew what this vote was about and what would happen once Bush got the authority to go to war.

So far, all I've heard from Kerry and Edwards are statements that sound shockingly similar to "nobody could have anticipated the breach of the levies."

[mzmolly]

116. Gotcha,

but I think the "explain why you believed the lies" is akin to blaming the victim? I do get your point about leadership and I think it's valid. I too was dismayed at the war vote and protested both Kerry and Edwards in the primaries. Since that time, I've come to forgive them both for their human error, as I too have made a few. ;)

[jgraz]

124. That's my point -- I don't think they DID believe the lies

Which, of course, it completely my opinion and somewhat difficult to prove (though we can argue evidence either way). To me, it is incredible that someone as experienced and intelligent and John Kerry could be taken in by something like this. I single Kerry out specifically, not only because of his nomination for president, but because of his incredible, courageous response to the Vietnam War. How is it that John Kerry could be so bamboozled?

That's the part that's hard to let go of: the feeling that these guys knew what they were doing and chose to do it anyway in order to further their political aspirations -- especially since I'm one of the many people whose career actually was damaged due to their activism against the war and this president.

[mzmolly]

147. If what you say is true, why wouldn't they know eventually they'd be made

fools of for voting in favor of the resolution we're discussing? Surely if Kerry knew, he'd not have let history shame him so?

[jgraz]

149. Sadly, people are incredibly short-sighted

I truly think they were incapable of seeing past the upcoming midterms and the '04 presidential campaign. I think that now they do realize that history will make fools of them and they're trying to weasel out of it.

This kind of thinking is not restricted to Congress. How many people in the MSM are choosing their personal careers over conscience right now, even though it's certain that they will be reviled by future generations for not standing up to this regime?

[mzmolly]

150. The media is a seperate issue, and as a ratings driven business venture

can't be taken too seriously. However, I don't think brilliant men are incapable of seeing past upcoming elections.

:shrug:

[jgraz]

152. You're right, my reply was a bit too simplistic

I think they saw past the elections, but it was the elections that were paramount in their minds. I view their vote as one of political strategy -- they were hoping that the war would go well and they would get some credit for it. They knew that if George Bush had an easy victory in a war they didn't support, their poltical aspirations were likely finished.

And of course, they were also hoping that if the war went sour, they could turn around and say they were lied to and that Bush deserved all the blame.

This is just my opinion, I have no way of knowing exactly what went on in their heads. But there is ample evidence to support such a conclusion, speculative though it is.

In the end, their reasons don't really matter that much. They voted for a war when they should have known better, and there really is no credible excuse for that.

[mzmolly]

153. I don't believe that a man who fought in a war, like Kerry would be so

cavalier about making life and death decisions. As you said "no one knows for sure" I agree. However, I personally can't judge Kerry and/or Edwards as political opportunists who put career ahead of human life, unless I have evidence to that effect.

[jgraz]

155. I didn't want to believe it either, but sadly the evidence is against him

His experience only compounds the sin. The fact that Kerry knows the horrors of war makes the hypocrisy and moral failure of his vote all the greater.

[mzmolly]

157. May I see the evidence?

You said "no one can know for sure" that seems contrary to "the evidence is against him" no?

[jgraz]

158. Sure, it's posted in many of my responses on this thread (and others)

"no one can know for sure" that seems contrary to "the evidence is against him"

Not at all. Evidence can suggest one conclusion or another without being completely incontrovertible. In fact, this is almost always the case.

[mzmolly]

159. I haven't seen any evidence posted by you

I've seen speculation.

Definition of "evidence" as per dictionary.com = "That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof"

Definition of "speculation" as per dictionary.com = "Conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise"

[jgraz]

160. Here's some

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2996137&mesg_id=2997353

Evidence (i.e., quotes, transcripts) that at least one Senator knew what this vote was about. There is further evidence in the amendment offered by Durbin, the floor speeches by Wellstone, Kennedy and Boxer and the filibuster attempt by Robert Byrd, among others.

The speeches in the House are even more damning, since they also discuss the fact that the troops would go into war without adequate protection against biological or chemical attack --something Kerry also knew when he cast his vote. If he truly believed the BCF's lies about WMD, why would he vote to send our troops into battle unprotected?

None of the above is speculation. All have been supported by recent posts on the various IWR threads. Furthermore, you can easily falsify these statements simply by showing evidence to the contrary, assuming any exists. I respectfully suggest doing so instead of coming of with subjective characteriziations of my posts.


BTW, thanks for the definitions. I don't have access to a dictionary from this connection. Or a fifth-grade vocabulary ;)

peace

[mzmolly]

161. Had Feingold voted in favor of the Resolution, I'd say you have a point.

But, since we're discussing John Kerry, it's not really relevant.

You may want to read Kerry's speech regarding his vote for clarification on his positions.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html



Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

...

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Reading this statement, it is clear to me that Kerry believed that Saddam was a threat, but he wanted "evidence" before pursuing all out war. He urged inspections, international cooperation and PROOF of an "imminent threat" before we took any steps toward an invasion. He has since admitted he was "wrong" to vote for the war, which of course, he was.

[jgraz]

162. And that's the crux of our disagreement

You read that statement as the sincere words of a statesman and I see it as a craven attempt to cover his ass politically. This is a valid point of difference and I don't see any way to really resolve it.

My instincts (not the MSM or the freepers or the Rethugs) tell me that Kerry has been less-than-sincere in all of his statements on the war. It's a belief I wish I didn't have, but Kerry's own words have reinforced that conclusion again and again.

We simply see Kerry's actions through completely different filters. One thing I think is true, though, is that your position is much harder to support from a rhetorical standpoint. You can point out any potentially exculpatory statement by him, and I can just say that I don't believe he was sincere when he said that.

The fact is that I truly don't believe he's been completely honest, but I imagine that doesn't make the argument any less frustrating from your point of view.

In the end, I don't think it's going to matter in the '08 election. I'm much more worried about Hillary, who hasn't even had the courage to repudiate her vote on the war.

As long as we both still think that Bush is the devil (or at least working for the devil), we'll have a lot more to agree on in the future.

[mzmolly]

163. In the end

I agree with you on this > As long as we both still think that Bush is the devil (or at least working for the devil), we'll have a lot more to agree on in the future.

Peace

[pnwmom]

171. Get real. We didn't know. We couldn't, since we didn't have

all the information. But our gut instincts told us not to trust them, and our gut instincts proved right.

Some Democratic politicians decided to trust the Bush Administration -- and were influenced especially by Colin Powell. This turned out to be an enormous mistake.

[dailykoff]

90. Good one.

:dem:

[JI7]

92. sadly, to many this was never about ending the war or stopping it

and still isn't.

i remember many of them attacked Kerry BEFORE the war when he would go after Bush on wanting to start a war before or without any attempt at diplomacy or preventing diplomacy itself from working.

[Clarkie1]

93. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

Even sadder are those who study history, but do not learn. I guess Kerry should have studied more, or had less of an eye on what he thought was politically expedient as a presidential hopeful. It makes his recent "joke" so ironic. Yes indeed, study more or you might end up voting for an unnecessary war.

A lot of other sentors...22 I believe was the final count, were a whole lot stronger and smarter, including Senator Kennedy.

Kerry participated in the castration of the U.S. Senate that day.

[WildEyedLiberal]

97. Did McGovern and McCarthy "castrate the Senate" too?

[agincourt]

95. Bush, the conservatives, the RW media whores own this war,

If Gore was allowed to serve his legally elected term we would not be in this shit. If Bush couldn't get his war on for his oil cronies he would have called up tim Laden for another attack, and blamed it on the Democrats. In 2002 Americans would have been stupid enough to fall for it.

[dionysus]

98. don't you ever stop?

i mean, it is pathetic. you really like Kerry, we get it. cripes.

[beachmom]

103. Not just about Kerry-- it's about ANY Democrat who voted yes

for the IWR, but who is now fighting to get us out of Iraq should be praised, not vilified -- just like McGovern and McCarthy and Fulbright.

[WildEyedLiberal]

119. Ignore the thread.

I thought your "only" complaint was when candidate supporters attacked other people for not liking their candidates? This thread attacks no DUer, nor does it even make a specific reference to one candidate. Obviously, your snotty OP the other day, despite your disingenuous protests to the contrary, was posted because YOU hate seeing Kerry supporters post anything at all.

Do you go into every Clark thread and bitch out the Clarkies and tell them "we get that you like Clark, give it a rest already"? No, you ONLY do it to Kerry threads or threads by Kerry people. So I "get" that you can't stand seeing anything posted about or even BY a prominent Kerry supporter.

Fortunately, you don't get to dictate what anyone posts on DU. Don't like it? Ignore the thread, and cry me a river. :eyes:

[TheBaldyMan]

105. search YouTube for "Driving Chomo"

there are a couple of clips that highlight that very issue.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqrJ2s6lDT4">watch Driving Chomo PT1 - Immaturity of the Left here

*** SPOILER ALERT ***









Prof. Chomsky has less than complimentary things to say about JFK and the Camelot cabal as well as how the Kennedy administration treated intellectuals that bear a striking resemblance to the neo-con contempt for RW fundies.

[Toots]

106. Well for one thing we were already involved in Vietnam

It was not a "pre-emptive" war. Our troops were there already. We had over nine thousand soldiers on the ground and navy ships throughout the South China Sea. It was because we were told our ships were attacked by the North Vietnamese that we responded and we should have.. Iraq was a different situation entirely. Iraq did nothing to the USA. We attacked a defenseless country with no military to speak of and no means what so ever of hurting the USA. We did so based upon lies that were known to be lies at the time. Those that spoke out were hammered mercilessly by the Republican machine and driven from office or punished in some manner. Their credibility was questioned and destroyed in many instances. Right now if one of our ships in the Sea of Humaz was struck by a missile and the Administration said Iran did it the same thing would more than likely occur. Congress would approve a counter attack almost unanimously. You wish to compare apples to go-carts IMO.

[IndianaGreen]

120. The Vietnam conflict began with Truman's betrayal of Ho Chi Minh

Ho led the resistance against Japan's occupation of Indochina. The OSS, which gave birth to CIA, worked closely with Ho in his fight against the Japanese. Ho was promised that once Japan was defeated, the United States would support Vietnamese independence. At war's end, the United States supported British and French efforts to reclaim their former colonies in Africa and Asia.

[CountessMZaleska]

107. I feel very little sympathy for those who voted

for the resolutions (Vietnam or Iraq) and then later pretended they didn't know what was going on.

They knew EXACTLY what was going on: upcoming war.

Kerry, Hillary and each one of the politicians who voted for the resolution in late 2002 wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to look both hawkish and critical of the war in case it didn't go well.

They are just as corrupt and criminally liable as the Repugs. And after all the lies and deaths, they are STILL not calling for total troop withdrawal.

Revolting.

[WildEyedLiberal]

122. McGovern the war criminal!

Yes, burn him at the stake!!!!!!1

[CountessMZaleska]

168. idk about McGovern

I wasn't around during most of the 60s. But Kerry and all of those who voted for war deserve no sympathy from me.

[welshTerrier2]

113. this misses the big picture

if the statement is that those who voted for the IWR should be forgiven as many of us "lefty freepers" (your obnoxiously insulting term that broad brushes the left) have already done, then i agree ... at some point, we need to look at ending the damned war and move our focus past the misguided votes of those who helped empower bush to go to war ... no issue there ...

but if you're trying to draw a parallel of IWR supporters who have since switched their opinion about Iraq to the actions of McCarthy and McGovern back, say, around 1968 - 1972, you're way off base ... both McCarthy and McGovern helped mobilize a generation and eventually most of the nation against the war in Vietnam ...

can anyone truly argue that any IWR supporter has helped mobilize a generation against the war? i think not ... at best, we're offered some form of milquetoast centrism about ending the war in another year ... another year of what, progress? another year of believing that investing more blood and treasure even for another day is the right course because something positive can be achieved?

to make a case for forgiving the horrible votes of those who voted for the IWR works fine for me; to compare them to the leadership and inspiration of McCarthy and McGovern as anti-war activists is absurd ... one thing's for sure, if the IWR "Yea" voters acted today with the courage and leadership shown by the M&M boys, they would see a far greater spectrum of forgiveness and would earn a far greater degree of respect ... to disconnect the "post vote" conduct from the degree of forgiveness badly misses the big picture ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

121. Many IWR "yes" voters have worked to end the war.

I don't think you can say that McCarthy or McGovern either one was the "source" of the anti-war sentiment; the argument could just as easily be made that they were just capitalizing on the antiwar sentiment of the people. So your criticism is largely subjective.

Also, I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about "lefty freepers" in my post, so it's odd that you should bring it up. I don't know why you are always determined to read offense into everything I write when 99.9% of the time I'm not even thinking about you or people like you when I write posts. You don't spend all your time on DU attacking Democrats, so I'm not talking about you or attacking you. Jeez, relax.

[welshTerrier2]

123. how many more times must we forgive them on this war?

i did NOT say that either one was the "source" of the anti-war movement ... what i did say was that they "helped mobilize a generation" ... i certainly did not, and do not, see them as the source of the anti-Vietnam War movement ... those who have apologized for their IWR votes or said they were wrong have not stood up anywhere close to the degree that McCarthy and McGovern did ... both men made the anti-war movement their daily mission ... their passion against the war was publically and frequently, almost daily, stated for all to see and hear ...

your comment that "the argument could just as easily be made that they were just capitalizing on the antiwar sentiment of the people" is very wrong on many levels ... neither of these men was "capitalizing" on anything ... both came to believe in how wrong and how horrible that war was ... subjective? perhaps ... i've heard both of them speak and i even met McGovern ... one might say everything is subjective ... both of these men were passionate about their opposition to the war ... i would never accept they did it for selfish reasons ...

today's "i was wrong" Senators have NOT demonstrated the same kind of leadership ... at best, they've made centrist proposals to gradually ease out of the war in Iraq ... if you want to "own" the rightness of that view, fine; i do NOT ... and whether you agree with my "out now" position or not, surely you must agree that "out now" is genuinely anti-Iraq war while "we can still make some progress if we stay another year or so" is not ... you cannot call for more war and sign up for being opposed to the war ... "i'm opposed to the war but think we need to keep fighting it" means you are in favor of continuing the war even if you don't like it ...

just out of curiosity, what exactly does this statement mean: "using the Iraq War as a political cudgel against your intraparty opponents shows a callous lack of concern for the actual human lives involved"?? do you really mean that? are you arguing that these callous, morally vacant anti-war people should NOT use their vote and their political will to fight against those in the party who support the war? what an incredible statement that is ... is it just possible those in the anti-war left DO CARE about the death and dying and are sickened by milquetoast Democrats who won't take the necessary political risks to demand an immediate end to the insanity ... some of us think every single day we spend in Iraq is a war crime ... some of us believe that even one more day does nothing but give bush a little more wiggle room to impose his imperialist agenda ... and some of us believe, no matter how much we wish it weren't so, that the large scale slaughter of Iraqis is going to occur with or without US presence ... to suggest that we are insensitive to the death and dying is an outrage ... to continue to support any politician of any party who argues for one more day in Iraq, let alone one more year, is what is morally vacant ...

i would love to see an Iraq at peace ... i abhor the death and dying and destruction that "YEA" votes on the IWR helped empower ... is it bush's war? of course it is ... but let's not tapdance around the issue that his mission was made far easier, however well-intentioned they may have been, by gaining the support of so many Democrats ... the good news is many have come to realize the wrongness of their votes and have apologized ... personally, i choose to accept that apology and i choose to focus on the present situation ... there's not one of the apologists who holds a current position i support ... at best, every one of them favors continuing the war to achieve one purpose or another ... they are making the same mistake now that they made then; they are trusting bush ... how many more times will they come to us with their apologies and how many more times will we be asked to forgive them?????

[jgraz]

125. BRAVO!!

:applause:

Excellent work. Just fucking excellent.

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. We disagree on the correct policy to end the war.

You do not believe any of the current policies crafted by any of our Dems are adequate; I do. We will have to agree to disagree on that point. You have every right to your opinion about it, but so do I.

Secondly, you seem determined to find offense in words I have said in the past that were not directed at you. I have no idea why. I rarely agree with you about Iraq but I can tell from your posts that you care a great deal about the issue and that your positions are well thought out. No, the people to whom I refer are those who NEVER post about the war, never speak of how to end it, never discuss any withdrawal proposals or define their own parameters, but ONLY bring up the war, as I said, as a political cudgel to use against their opponents. For some people on DU, the war is only mentioned as a way to castigate certain Dems who voted for IWR because some of those Dems are not the poster's 2008 preference. I find that morally reprehensible. To use something as serious as the war in Iraq as nothing more than a way to attack Democrats you don't want to be president is to trivialize the situation and furthermore, drowns out any meaningful discussion about what to do NOW in Iraq. I admire people who clearly are informed and passionate about ending the war, even if I rarely agree with them. I do not respect people who clearly never talk about the war and don't ever discuss it or seem to care about it at all unless they can use it as part of their political agenda.

You are, as I have said for now perhaps the 1000th time, not a DUer I have ever had in mind when I recoil in disgust from these posers who claim to care so deeply about the war but who only care about it in the context of how they can use it to fling political mud. I may disagree with you vehemently but I believe you genuine.

[welshTerrier2]

134. what policy do you support?

you stated: "You do not believe any of the current policies crafted by any of our Dems are adequate; I do."

i would extend your statement as follows: "You do not believe any of the current policies crafted by any of our Dems are adequate GIVEN THAT BUSH IS IN THE WH; I do."

that to me is THE issue ... if we had a Democrat in the WH and you wanted to make a pitch for "regional negotiations" or a little more time for troop training or giving the new government a little time to get its feet on the ground with support from the US, my position, given the current mess, would be a definite "MAYBE" ... the point is i would have to assess the administration in power and whether i thought they could effectively make progress towards peace ... i am NOT a pacifist ...

but that is not the situation we are in ... bush is in the WH ... the Founders gave Congress a very specific and very legitimate remedy if the President waged war and the Congress wanted it to end or at least wanted the President to adhere to their wishes about the conduct of the war ... Congress was given the power of the purse ... if bush refuses to adhere to the wishes of the Democratic majority, all they need do is threaten to cut off funding for all but defensive (i.e. troop protection) purposes and for withdrawal purposes ...

so, my question to you, in addition to asking what your position is on Iraq, is: exactly what should the Democrats do when bush tells them to take a hike? also, since you apparently disagree with my "out now" perspective, what exactly do you believe bush wants to accomplish in Iraq and what do you believe he will be able to accomplish ... my view is that he is still trying to setup a puppet regime who will cater to big oil ... my view is that the big oil companies, who have realized all time record profits during the conduct of this war and occupation, are in no hurry at all to see this end ... the big boys are still trying for a win ... after all, it's not their bottoms and their bottom lines that are adversely affected ...

talk to me about the big "why" we should stay ... tell me how Democrats should try to get bush under control ... tell me whether you believe bush's motives are legitimate and sincere but he's just been inept ... because that's what i see as the fundamental flaw in the "we have to stay" argument ... all of them refusing to get behind "out now" have to believe that somehow, even given the history and given who's in the WH, more war is better than stopping it now ... as i said, the mistake, the tragic mistake of a yes vote on the IWR was not necessarily that it was a vote for war (an arguable point) but that the vote invested trust in bush ... i cannot see how continuing to hand him hundreds of billions of dollars to continue that which he has wrought makes any sense at all ...

well meaning? perhaps ... it just seems unbelievably misguided ... bush and his minions and those who pull his strings are a very evil bunch indeed ... giving them more time and more money to continue the madness seems like the epitome of "fool me twice" to me ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

166. You make a good case

Well, first of all, "out now" is as implausible, given that Bush is in the White House, as any other withdrawal plan currently submitted. You say the only way for Congress to meaningfully neuter Bush's ability to continue the war is to stop funding the war... an interesting point. But how can you be any more sure that that would force Bush's hand any more than passing a withdrawal resolution? I could easily see Bush invoking his unitary powers to provide for an emergency loan to continue financing the war... it would be unconstitutional as hell but he has proven time and again that said document means nothing to him.

I do NOT trust Bush's motives in Iraq... I know it's all about oil, and occupation... but, and I think you sort of drove home the ultimate point, there may not be any way to bring the troops home until Bush is no longer in office. Honestly, I think the only way the troops are going to leave before 2009 is for the Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney. I think the first priority of the new Congress should be launching an investigation into the lies the WHIG told to convince the nation that the war was necessary. Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense, as is violating the terms of a Congressional resolution - to me that seems the most realistic way to actually start bringing them home. Will it happen? Hard to say... if the investigations don't happen though, I will be extremely disappointed in the new Congress.

I think Democrats submitting withdrawal plans that set a target deadline aren't setting the deadline with Bush in mind, but rather to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take more responsibility for training its police force so they can maintain some semblance of order. With the civil war raging that may be a lost cause anyway, but I think the intentions are to support the fledging Iraqi government, not to provide cover to BushCo. Also, realistically speaking, but any kind of resolution that's going to pass is going to have to pass with some moderate or conservative votes... people like Chuck Hagel who are very conservative but who see that the war is failed policy would nevertheless block any "out now" proposal... of course, if Chuck Hagel were serious about leaving Iraq, he would have voted for Kerry/Feingold or at least the Levin amendment, but I digress.

The wild card in all this is the Iraq Study Group. Perhaps Poppy has browbeaten Junior into using this commission as a way to make a "graceful exit" from Iraq to preserve his legacy (sick that the Bushes care not one whit for the waste of human lives, but are only willing to consider ending the war if their "legacy" becomes threatened), but I truly do think Bush is a borderline sociopathic narcissist with severe "daddy issues," so will he listen? Who knows... I am curious to see how the next couple of months play out, though.

[Pithy Cherub]

131. welshTerrier2 just plain rocks!

Today's IWR voters had history as a guide didn't learn from it and STILL voted yes while denying their responsibilities for the longest time to fix it! Some get it now. McGovern et al have spent the time on their atonement and they have street cred because they put the time in. The others are truly newbies on the long atonement path!

:yourock: Gosh, you're good, nay EXCELLENT!:applause:

[ProSense]

132. Your last paragraph is completely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2997917&mesg_id=2998143">false.

[welshTerrier2]

136. why go half way?

my feeling has always been that if i'm going to write anything false, i should make sure it's completely false ... none of those half-way measures for me ... either do it and do it big or step aside and let someone else do it ... i'm glad you appreciated the totality of my effort ...

but, as they say, all seriousness aside, here's my last paragraph again:

i would love to see an Iraq at peace ... i abhor the death and dying and destruction that "YEA" votes on the IWR helped empower ... is it bush's war? of course it is ... but let's not tapdance around the issue that his mission was made far easier, however well-intentioned they may have been, by gaining the support of so many Democrats ... the good news is many have come to realize the wrongness of their votes and have apologized ... personally, i choose to accept that apology and i choose to focus on the present situation ... there's not one of the apologists who holds a current position i support ... at best, every one of them favors continuing the war to achieve one purpose or another ... they are making the same mistake now that they made then; they are trusting bush ... how many more times will they come to us with their apologies and how many more times will we be asked to forgive them?????

completely false, you say? for starters then, this means i would NOT love to see peace in Iraq ... i assume you know my deepest inner feelings on the war better than i do so i'll yield to you on this point ... and the abhorring "death, dying and destruction" wreaks of alliteration and couldn't possibly be sincere ... that's two for you so far ... none for me ... and of course i said it was bush's war but is it really fair to pin the whole damned thing on any one person ... nailed me pretty good again ... damn ... you might be onto something here ... that's 3 zip you're up ... and then i said that bush's mission was made easier by garnering so much Democratic support ... hmmmmmm ... a little trickier there ... i mean, had there been real leadership against the war, maybe Americans would have wondered whether there was anything to their opposition ... it certainly didn't make it any harder for bush having so many Democrats vote the way he wanted ... but i said it made it easier ... OK ... i'll give you that one too but it was close ... then i said many have come to realize the wrongness of their votes and have apologized ... maybe it was just a few and not many ... OK, you win again ... hmmmmmmmm ... maybe the last paragraph was completely false ... let's keep going though ... i'm no quitter ... there's not one of the apologists who holds a current position i support ... got you there ... unless you know what i believe better than i do, i can assure you i don't support anyone's current position of those who apologized for their votes ... OK, you're still up 5 to 1 ... hmmmmmm ... hard to yield on the next one too ... help me out here if i'm missing something ... i said every one of them favors continuing the war to achieve one purpose or another ... well, you get two chances on this point ... first, do any of them not favor continuing the war and believe as i do that it should be ended immediately? i think the most aggressive of those who apologized or said they were wrong favors MORE TIME ... that would mean CONTINUING THE WAR wouldn't it? and i also said that the favor their position to achieve one purpose or another ... isn't it fair to assume if they don't think we should leave immediately that they believe we should remain to achieve some kind of goal? sorry but i think that one goes to me ... fear not though, you're still up 5 to 2 ... then i said they are trusting bush ... of course, if they are NOT trusting bush, they would have to be making continued funding of the war contingent on bush's adhering to how they want the war conducted (and concluded) ... is there any evidence we have that bush has been given an ultimatum by those who apologized for their IWR votes? if not, again, it's hard to see how they aren't trusting him ... is it sane to continue to fund someone you don't believe either wants to achieve the same objectives you do or you don't believe is capable of achieving those objectives? gotta go with 5 to 3 now ... but damn, those were all the points i made ...

but wait ... we have the bonus round ... it's worth 2 points ... you said my last paragraph was completely false ... clearly it was not completely false ... surely we can agree on a humble draw ... i know i feel good about that ... how about you?

[ProSense]

137. First of all, please use paragraph breaks so the copy is more readable!

Second, you switch between cutting off funding and supporting withdrawal based upon whichever is convenient to make your case in oppostion of what's posted.

For example, this plan has nothing to do with cutting funding.

Not that it's a bad idea, but my point is that these wordy posts, in such a confusing format, and void of anything but opinion and spin are not substitutes for facts! This is your opinion.

[welshTerrier2]

138. my opinions are "completely false"?

is it possible to have false opinions?

now, about this switching business, let's try to clear that up right away ... i support "out now" ... period ... there's no switching about that and no equivocation about that ... i raised the issue of cutting off funding merely to point out that the Dems could use the threat of doing that for leverage against bush if they chose to do so ... the point i was making is that they apparently do NOT choose to do so based on the best available evidence ... the conclusion i drew from this is that they must believe they can continue to fund his war and that he will do something positive and useful with the funding ... i like to think of that as trusting bush ...

as for opinions not being substitutes for facts, i certainly agree with you there ... when you said my last paragraph was completely false, it's hard to see that as a fact ...

the bottom line here, in my opinion, is that there are two courses of actions for those who disagree with what bush is doing in Iraq ... one course is that we take an "out now" case to the American people ... not your cup of tea you say? fine ... the other course is that we use all the political clout at our disposal to bend him towards our will as to how the war should be conducted ... that means threatening to cut off funds ... that is NOT my preferred approach ...

what exactly is your approach? all i see from most elected Democrats is a "we really need to start being more effective" ... wellllll, yeah ... that's nice ... and????? and what???? what do we do when bush drags his feet? can't you see that he is not going to let this end on his watch? he's going to drag this out if he has to egg on the Iraqi opposition himself ... so some Democrats keep funding him ... they make their little suggestions ... oh, many of the ideas could actually work if bush had the same objectives they have ... do you believe he does? do you believe bush wants to bring an autonomous government to Iraq? do you believe bush would pull out all US troops with none occupying the permanent bases they've built? do you believe the oil fields, which is what this is really all about, will be left to the Iraqis for their sole benefit? what do you believe bush will do with his renewed budget of time and troops and money? nothing good will come of it ... and the Democrats? what will they do in opposition? what will say they when this deadline passes and the next one and the next one and the one after that?

[ProSense]

139. I didn't say all your opinions are false!

I don't know what the Democratic majority in Congress will do. We will have to wait and see when they take over in January!

[jgraz]

154. Just all the opinions in the last paragraph

:evilgrin:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. The world was very different then

We didn't have 24-hour news channels or satellite TV or the Internet or even much foreign travel going on.

I acquired my doubts about Bush's Middle East policies from watching the Canadian news and the BBC on the late, lamented News World International and by reading the articles from the world press that other DUers found.

1964 Congresscritters had three television networks and daily newspapers, many of which were, we later learned, infiltrated by the CIA.

That's why it was harder for them to see through the lies. Based on the media available to most people in 1964, there was no reason to doubt Johnson's story.

Almost everyone in the larger population accepted it, too, along with its "containment of Communism" ideology. Widespread protests didn't occur until 1968 or so.

Compare and contrast this with 2002, when there were massive protests in every major city in the country and most foreign capitals. The Congresscritters would have had to make an effort to ignore the fact that a lot of people had severe doubts about the Busheviks' story.

[dailykoff]

140. We know more, but Congress relied on CIA briefings then as now.

They have a responsibility to accept the findings of official government intelligence channels since they're part of the government.

And yes, there was also opposition to the CIA then as now. JFK expressed a desire to smash it into a thousand pieces and we know how that turned out.

[welshTerrier2]

142. responsibility to accept the findings of official government ...

a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate chose not to "accept the findings" ... is your point that they failed to honor their responsibilities?

we expect people we elect to use their brains and their judgment and their knowledge to make decisions ... we do not expect them to blindly follow "facts that were fixed around the policy" ... voices in the intelligence community that did not agree with the "bush line" were silenced ... they were prevented from testifying ... every Democrat knew this ...

when the fix is in, it is even more important than usual for the system of checks and balances to function at its best ... clearly that did not happen on the IWR vote ...

Congress had a huge responsibility not to blindly follow the so called facts coming out of the CIA but to stop the BFEE from promulgating another disasterous oil war ...

[ProSense]

143. No,

they accepted the findings, but their votes varied on the different amendments authorizing the use of force.

[welshTerrier2]

144. bad link?

clicked on your "accepted" link but can't get there from here ...

i'm not clear what point you're making ... do you disagree that a majority of Congressional Dems voted against the IWR? do you disagree that there were voices inside the CIA fighting against the bush line? do you disagree that many witnesses the Dems wanted to call were never called by the republicans? do you disagree that the facts were fixed around the policy?

[ProSense]

145. Fixed! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

146. Thanks! n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. However, there was no public pressure to reject the Gulf of Tonkin

resolution. Quite the contrary. The mood of the day was anti-Communism, and that was pretty much unquestioned.

That's what's different.

Those who voted for the IWR, especially in blue states, went against overwhelming majorities who begged them not to do it. Those who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution voted right in line with the wishes of their constituents.

I was a young teenager in 1964, but I was interested in current events, and if there was any public opposition to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, it was not reported.

[dailykoff]

172. There was considerable public pressure to prosecute the war on terror

entirely bogus though we (now) know it to be. This was 13 months after 9/11 and the drums were beating loudly. Look in any newspaper from that month if you don't remember.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

174. Right, but there were massive demonstrations against the IWR in

every major city.

There were NO such demonstrations before the voting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. None.

The reason for the difference is more alternative sources of information for those willing to seek it out. In 1964, there was no Internet, no satellite television, and therefore, little access to foreign views, even if you were interested in them.

[ecstatic]

169. UMMM... it might be irony but ironically your post is correct

Way too many people died in Vietnam for those two to have received a pass. Same goes for Yes votes for the IWR.

[pnwmom]

175. What do you think would have happened if the IWR hadn't passed?

In the wake of 9/11, and Colin Powell's dramatic UN presentation, and Rice's warnings about nuclear bombs going off on U.S. soil, the American public was strongly supporting Bush.

If the Democrats had solidly voted against the IWR that the public supported, a few weeks later the public would have voted even more Democratic Senators and House members out of office.

Then the Republicans would have swept in with their huge majorities and passed their own IWR in January.

For Bush, timing it the way he did, it was a win-win proposition.

[Arkana]

170. CAUTION: ORIGINAL POST CONTAINS PRESSURIZED IRONY

You're right, though.

[pnwmom]

173. Good post. Thanks. I think a lot of people have forgotten

what it was like in October 2002. The country was still reeling from 9/11. Bush was riding a wave of support from the public, which was strongly inclined to back anything that he did, especially if he could connect it with the "war on terrorism."

Yes, Senators did have to make political calculations in their vote. Bush had deliberately timed it that way. Suppose that all of the Democrats had voted against the resolution. Many of us would have been cheering. But given the political mood at the time, that would have meant the loss of even more Senate seats than we did suffer. And for what? Two months later, with his new House and Senate majorities, Bush could have easily gotten his IWR passed.

So we were caught between a rock and a hard place. Go along with the resolution, which the majority of Americans supported (after hearing warnings about nuclear bombs going off in American cities) -- and trust that Bush would respect its limits. Or oppose the resolution and -- if you were running for office -- take a chance on losing your seat based on that vote alone.

And then watch the Republicans sweep into power in January and pass their own IWR.