To those who knew the IWR was a "vote for war":

[ProSense]

Did you cast a vote for any of the Democrats you refer to as "criminals" from 2002-2006?

If so, do you consider yourself an accomplice or a hypocrite?


Here are the Senators who voted yes on the IWR:

Baucus, Max
Biden, Joseph
Cantwell, Maria
Clinton, Hillary
Dorgan, Byron
Feinstein, Dianne
Harkin, Tom
Johnson, Tim
Kerry, John
Landrieu, Mary
Lautenberg, Frank
Lieberman, Joseph
Lincoln, Blanche
Menendez, Robert
Mikulski, Barbara
Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Bill
Pryor, Mark
Reed, Jack
Rockefeller, John
Reid, Harry
Salazar, Ken
Schumer, Charles

[mike_c]

1. no, not for one of them....

Why don't you stop this bitterness?

[ProSense]

3. You haven't voted for a Democrat since 2002? Bitterness?

You believe Clinton killed more people than Bush!

[mike_c]

7. I haven't voted for any of THOSE democrats....

They betrayed America IMO. This includes one of my senators (DiFi) in 2006 and the democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees in 2004.

[ProSense]

12. So you didn't vote for Sen. Feinstein or for Kerry and Edwards, correct? n/t

[Katzenjammer]

28. Why would he, if he doesn't live in their state?

I live in Mass, and I didn't vote for Kerry or Markey after their IWR sellout sickened me.

[mike_c]

51. that is correct-- it's called democracy....

eom

[Redstone]

2. What the hell are you going on about? Looking to pick a fight?

That's the only thing I can infer from your post.

Friendly suggestion: Wrap it up for the night and go to bed.

Redstone

[ProSense]

4. The OP has been edited!

I hope that clarifies it!

[Redstone]

5. Yes, that clarifies it. And I agree with you.

Redstone

[A Simple Game]

6. Isn't it hard to be a progressive,

when you are stuck in the past?

[janx]

8. Please give it up, ProSense.

Many of us respect John Kerry. I was living in Colorado and voted for Salazar in the general election there. I had local reasons for doing so.

Just stop with this stuff. John Kerry is a fine senator--can we please leave it at that?

[ProSense]

9. Salazar! Thanks for answering the question! n/t

[janx]

10. I didn't vote for him in the primary, and had I known he would

have voted for the war, I would not have voted for him at all.

[ProSense]

11. So you didn't vote for Kerry in 2004? n/t

[some guy]

20. I voted for Ken Salazar

in 2004.

If you would bother to check your facts, you would know he DID NOT vote for the IWR in 2002 because he was NOT a US Senator then.

link to IWR Vote

You owe someone an apology. (hint: it isn't me)

:hi:

[The Magistrate]

13. The Line, Ma'am, That Calls Democrats "Criminals" Over This Vote

Is flat nonesense.

The vote on the resolution was political trap, in which there was no good choice. Conventional political strategy dictated that the best of the poor choices was not to hand the enemy clubs to use in accusing Democrats of being "soft on defending America", and political figures contemplating future races, including the up-coming Congressional elctions, voted accordingly, and rationalized it as seemed best to each. It is quite likely this vote was conditioned by a confidence the venture when undertaken would prove more or less successful, based on a confidence in the military capabilities of the country. Indeed, had the plans of professionals in the Pentagon and the State Department been followed, this might well have been the case.

The fact is that the war in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the Republican administration which conceived, pressed, and executed it. Any attempt to spread the blame is essentially an attempt to absolve them from it, and free them to some degree from the consequences of their folly and failure. Fortunately the people of the country are wiser than some left activists, and see the matter as simply what it actually is: a total cock-up by the Republicans. They have acted accordingly in the recent elections, and will act accordingly again in the '08 race, particularly as the present regime is resolved to ignore their clearly registered view that it is time to end the thing.

The real question is why, since the line is neither a true one, nor a useful one in the national political scene, any persist in pressing it at all. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the reason some press this line is a desire for civil war within the Democratic Party and the left. To give in to this desire is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory: it is the one remaining hope of the enemy.


"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[MADem]

17. Geez, glad someone here gets it. It's always been so obvious.

But it's far easier to spend an evening bashing fellow Democrats rather than going after the REAL criminals, like the BushCo crowd. That said, the BushCo crowd is indeed thrilled with these sorts of bullshit topics, because they do attempt to divide and conquer.

Ain't gonna happen though, because we Democrats don't live in the past. We look to the future.

[WritersBlock]

18. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

The fact is that the war in Iraq is the sole responsibility of the Republican administration which conceived, pressed, and executed it. Any attempt to spread the blame is essentially an attempt to absolve them from it, and free them to some degree from the consequences of their folly and failure.

Well said!!

This is rapidly becoming my personal obsession - resisting BushCo's attempts to revise history and spread that responsibility which, in reality, lies entirely upon their own slimey, slippery, slithery shoulders.







(edited for grammar & additional alliteration)

[dionysus]

23. ok, Magistrate, spin it as you damn well please

the dems that voted for that horse shit, Knew they were duped, DUers knew it was all bullshit...

It all comes down to a cold political calculation.

The Dems that voted for it didn't want to painted as cowards, they wanted to get elected.

You should join a cycling class, and turn your flowery eloquent, condescending against us "left" unwashed masses prose into something useful.

[SaveElmer]

48. So you believe then...

That Max Cleland, who had three of his limbs blown off in VietNam, who was administrator of the Veteran's Administration under President Clinton, voted for a resolution he knew would result in the death of thousands of American soldiers, all to cover his ass...

Is that what you are claiming?

[The Magistrate]

50. Indeed, Sir, It Comes Down To Cold Political Calculation

It is why anyone would expect anything else that strikes me as the mystery....

[paulk]

68. "they wanted to get elected"

Imagine that!

[dionysus]

24. BTW

as a mod, aren't you supposed to stay neutral in this stuff?

[MH1]

32. Seems to me...

he is defending the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

As a moderator on the DEMOCRATIC Underground, I don't see why that should be a problem at all.

As for those who seem to be on a mission to undermine the Democratic Party, I'm not sure why they're still allowed to post here.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

90. you fucking think I am trying to undermine the party?

and you are snidely asking for me to be banned?

He's not defending the PARTY, he's defending a POLITICIAN. Go pound sand.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

70. Who says mods are supposed to stay neutral about "this stuff"?

Mod neutrality applies only to judgement of what posts violate the rules of DU, judgement that is applied by mod consensus.

It doesn't mean neutralizing an individual mod's opinion so he can't disagree with you.

Twisting it any other way is just an admission that you can't win an argument without silencing your opponent. Rather sad...

[MadHound]

27. And yet, if Democrats had simply done their job, listened to their constituents,

They wouldn't have fallen for this trap, and thus wouldn't be in this stuck with blood on their hands now. And frankly, judging from the rhetoric and the continued votes for funding this war, there are some Senators out there who are apparently just as hawkish as Bush, Clinton comes to mind immediately.

But lets go back to 2003, right before the vote. Sixty eight percent of the American public didn't want to deal with the IWR, didn't want to do anything until the inspectors had done their job and reported back. A smart, sensible policy, a shame that our Senators didn't follow it. In addition, in the days leading up to the IWR vote, messages, coming in by phone, letter, fax and email, were running 268-1 against the IWR. The people were speaking, loud and clear. Millions were turning out, both around the country and around the world, loudly saying NO to the IWR. It was clear, despite what was floating around in the MSM, that the American people didn't want the IWR passed.

And yet, in order to provide cover for future election campaigns, to save their own ass, they went ahead and passed the IWR, thus consigning tens of thousands of people to death.

Sorry, there is no excuse.

They failed to do their primary job, which is to give voice to the collective will of their constituents. They put their own interests before the interest of the American people and played politics with the lives of tens of thousands of human beings. Sorry, no excuse, and I will neither forgive nor forget, especially considering that some of these self same Senators(Clinton among others) continue to vocally support and fund this war.

All that these Dems had to do was their damn job. Yet instead, they kowtowed to Bushco and the RW media, and thus betrayed us all.

Sorry, but saying "Oops, my bad" just somehow doesn't make up for what these spineless wonders did.

[The Magistrate]

41. Those Polls, Mr. Hound, Are A Pretty Slender Rede

The people of the country remained in a pretty bellicose mood, and a feeling that Iraq was a species of un-finished business left over from '91 remained widespread. The ground was a fertile one for whipping up war enthusiasm, as events demonstrated adequately, and professionals understood at the time.

Nor are communications to politician's offices the sole, or even the most reliable, measure of constituent feelings. The electorate that turned out in the '02 elections was a pretty war-like one, as the Republican victories in the Senate demonstrated.

The invasion of Iraq would have taken place regardless of this pre-election vote. It would have been passed by the next, much more Republican, Congress, or the action would have been taken under the War Powers act, however much of a stretch that might have been, and ratified by acclaim in the glow of apparent military success within a few weeks of its commencement. This makes the entirity of agitation over the matter today peculiarly pointless. It is of no use at all in attacking Republicans, and indeed temds to provide the present regime a species of cover. Its only real utility is as a talking point for persons who conceive the great need of the political hour to remove from office a variety of mainstream and widely popular Democratic Party politicians. Anyone who thinks this ought to be the great priority of left political action at this time badly mis-reads both the needs and the mod of the people and the country.

[MadHound]

59. Funny, if polls are as slender a rede as you claim, they why does our government

Resort to them for all sorts of policy and political purposes? Both CBS and NYTimes(among others) conducted polls in the pre-IWR period. All consistently found that the overwhelming majority of Americans wished to forestall any action, including the IWR, until after the inspectors had finished their job. These polls consistently showed that only 31% of the public wished to use military force ASAP. This was a very consistent message being sent, yet our so called leaders chose to ignore it.

In addition, despite your assertion to the contrary, messages to Congress are actually fairly solid indicators of the mood of the people. Especially when you consider that the messages against the IWR were running 268-1. Even if you gave a +/- variable that was a couple of orders of magnitudes(ludicrous, but I'm making a point here), you would still have the majority of Americans against the IWR:shrug: This is especially significant in so much as this was a broad based opposition. Literally tens of millions of messages came in, so thick and furious that it they were shutting down telephone exchanges and crashing email servers.

Yes, you are probably correct in that Bush would have found a way to get his war on one way or the other. But the support of the Democrats not only made this much easier for Bush, but it drastically lowered the world's opinion of us, since the vote gave out the impression of bi-partisan support of the war. The world's opinion would be much more favorable if it didn't appear that *all* of the US were blood thirsty invaders. This perception has not been helped at all by continued and ongoing support for the funding of this war, nor the positions taken by such prominent Democrats such as Clinton and Lieberman.

In addition, Bush would have had a much more difficult job in prosecuting this war if there had been consistent, determined Democratic opposition in both houses of Congress. It is actually quite concievable that tens of thousands of lives might have been saved but such opposition, but instead Democrats sacrificed these lives on the altars of their political ambitions, not daring to *gasp* want peace, or appear "soft on terra."

We find ourselves in a political much akin to Vietnam in the sixties. Both parties have tried to outhawk the other, and the war continues to grind on, devouring men, women, children and vast quantities of money, all for no good end. I fully believe in holding *everybody* accountable for their actions in regards to this war. I recognize that there are some who have admitted the error of their ways, some who were generally fooled at the time, but frankly the vast majority of Dems who voted for this legislation were simply playing political games, worried more about the next election than the lives their actions would entail. Therefore, yes, those Democrats need to be held accountable and be replaced. Frankly, if I had an employee who failed to fulfill their primary job duty as badly as these Democrats have, I would fire them on the spot. Instead, many are now scrambling to CYA in regards to Iraq, and wind up looking foolish by doing so. Frankly, if such people are going to play politics with something which is as of great significance as a war, how do you think these same politicians will react when confronted by a host of lesser issues, such as the bankruptcy bill, the Patriot Act, the prescription drug bill, on and on. As we've seen all too well, they played politics with those issues too, and we're all suffering because of it.

If you continue to offer these people a free pass simply because of the D behind their name, well then, you can expect the madness to continue. The only way real, meaningful change is going to come about in this country is if all of us start holding our leaders accountable. Until then we will simply continue our slide into the abyss, at varying degrees of speed.

[The Magistrate]

61. And Yet, Sir

Support for the action was overwhelming once the thing commenced. It is odd how that works, is it not? The fact is that military action is popular with the public at large in its early stages, and loses this popularity only through muddle and defeat over time. What polls of the sort you are resting your argument on do not measure well is intensity of support or opposition, and to anyone sniffing the wind, it was quite obvious at that time that no great number of people had profound objections to the course of invading Iraq, while those who supported it were deeply committed. It is intensity that sways the mass to one side or the other.

The line that "Democrats must be held responsible for the war!" remains a wholly futile one that does nothing but provide an alibi for the present administration and the Republican party. Fortunately, the people of the country have a sufficient understanding of the matter to turn a deaf ear to it, and it will remain the province of a small activist element that seems in many ways to actively court its marginalization in our nation's political life.

[MadHound]

64. Let me repeat this for you, since you seem determined to take me out of context

"I fully believe in holding *everybody* accountable for their actions in regards to this war." Do you understand that now, that I'm not just going off on the Dems? I hope so. Yes, I tend to harp on the Dems more, but quite frankly I expect better out of the Dems.

And yes, people tend to support a war and support the troops once the shooting starts, this is common in any war and any country. It is the result of patriotism. BUT, we're not speaking of the time period after the war started friend, we're talking of the time period before the IWR was voted on, and as I have shown time and again, the American people were overwhelming stating that they didn't want to do anything until after the inspectors had finished their job. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here, and it just doesn't work.

And frankly, if the Democrats had done as the public was reacting, stalled the vote until after the inspectors had finished, Bush boy's lie about WMD's would have been exposed, and we probably wouldn't be there now.

[The Magistrate]

67. What Is The Context, Sir, You Are Insisting On?

The invasion of Iraq is the sole responsibility of the Republican Party anbd administration that conceived, pressed for, and executed it. That is the proper line, in accord with the facts, useful in political action, and well received by the people. Why you insist on sharing the blame with Democrats is beyond me. It simply confuses an issue that is clear enough, and best expressed as "This damn Republican war!"

In regard to the state of popular opinion in the summer and early fall of '02, you are making the mistake of treating this as a static thing, and making no allowance whatever for intensity of feeling, and the direction opinion was moving, and being moved, in. The "wait for the inspectors" bloc was simply wanting "eyes" dotted and "tees" crossed before action commenced, it was not true opposition, and it is unwise to read it as such. These people moved steadily into the war camp as time marched on, and this was obvious and predictable at the time.

[MadHound]

73. Sorry that I insist on the truth of the matter, and the truth isn't bound by political affiliation

Yes, this war was proposed by Republicans, yes it was pushed by the 'Pugs, but it was enabled by Democrats who voted for this war, and by Democrats who have continued to favor funding this war. Apparently I'm not the only only one alone who insists on holding *everybody* accountable, seeing as Lieberman got his ass handed to him in the primaries precisely over his ongoing support of the war. A shame that so many others fail to do so.

And frankly, you are reading too much into those polls yourself. It makes no mention about people wanting the I's dotted and T's crossed, it simply states people wanted the inspectors to finish their job before taking any other action, no more, and certainly no less. And as regards to your claim that I'm treating this as a "static thing", well that is simply wrong. I'm giving you data and polls ranging from late 2002 all the way through to just before the vote came down. And those polls, those snapshots remain constant over time, the American people didn't want to do a damn thing until after the inspectors had finished.

Please, I realize that you have an aversion to holding both 'Pugs and Dems responsible for their actions, but don't stoop to twisting my meanings, or massaging the data. Also, for the sake of our country, one which is mired in a two party, same corporate master system of government, please consider the idea of holding *everybody* in government responsible for their votes and actions. Part of what got this country where we are today is a history of both sides playing party politics over doing the common good. This isn't a new phenomenon, but it has greatly accelerated over the past fifty years, and it is destroying our country. A bad leader isn't going to miraculously become good, simply because he has a D behind his name. This is *our* government, and if we want it to improve, then we have to hold "everybody* responsible for doing their job, including acting as the collective representative for the wishes of their constituents.

[The Magistrate]

74. What Is Truth, Sir?

Some say the opinion that survives, others what best fits what someone believes, or even more common, what someone desires. Your statement that Democrats are responsible for the invasion of Iraq will not meet the first definition, certainly, but seems suited enough to the other two to pass muster. It cannot meet any definition that employs a test of factual acccurracy, however, along the lines of stating two and two is four, or that the period of daylight grows shorter daily in the period between the summer and winter solstices. You declare it "the truth" that "Democrats are responsible for the war in Iraq!" because it suits your views and desires. Your view is that the two parties are collaborators in a political system rather than opponents in any signifigant sense within a political system, and your desire is to re-fashion the Demcoratic Party into something you would view as an enemy of the current economic and political order, or failing that, to establish a new party that would be such an enemy on its fragments. You feel that charging "Democrats are responsible for the war in Iraq!" will be a useful tool in this endeavor because you feel the current distaste of the people of the country for that venture is as deep-seated as yours, and of a similar character to yours, and therefore can be turned against Democrats as well as Republicans with results you crave. But the current popular distaste for the occupation of Iraq is neither of these things. It is mostly a revulsion at the incompetence with which it was cinducted, not a conviction the thing was a monstrous wrong to do. The public wants the people who were in charge turned out, and wants the thing ended so it will not bother them with bad news any longer. The people know who was in charge, and that these were Republicans, not Democrats.

[MadHound]

80. *Sigh*

Magistrate, Magistrate, Magistrate, what am I going to do with you. You insist on taking way too many things out of context, ignoring statements that it suits you to do so, and draw inferences and conclusions from my writing that have no factual basis. With this amount of spin, denial, and willful blindness, I find that explaining the truth to you to be virtually impossible, especially as I've other pressing things to do. Perhaps we can get into this at some other time, but until then, go over our exchange today, and point out where I said I wanted to "re-fashion the Demcoratic Party into something you would view as an enemy of the current economic and political order". Show me where I stated that I hold the Democratic party solely responsible for the Iraq War.

A few other readings and searches for you to do. First off, I would suggest Kevin Phillip's well reasoned book "Wealth and Democracy" I would also suggest that you study the last time in our history we suffered from the two party/same corporate master system of government, The Gilded Age. Explore how politics worked back then, and what the Gilded Age led to(hint, it starts with Great and ends with Depression). Then I would suggest that compare that with the funding that politicians recieve today in their electoral campaigns. Hint, not only do most corporations give large amounts to both parties, but many give in almost equal amounts.

So until next time, have a good one:hi:

[The Magistrate]

81. My Sentiments Precisely, Sir

"I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer long."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. To summarize, they valued their own cushy careers over standing up against

the most cynically conceived, pointless, damaging military venture of my lifetime (and that's saying a lot, since I was around for both the Vietnam War and the Central American interventions).

They should all have been as courageous as Paul Wellstone, whose poll numbers went UP six points after he voted against the IWR. And I know from another DUer who talked to his wife that Wellstone voted against the IWR half-believing the conventional wisdom that it would ruin his reputation.

If they had all taken a united stand against this resolution (which we "loony leftists" knew that Bush would take as a blank check for an all-out invasion), everyone on this board and among the increasingly disillusioned general public would have considered them heroes of conscience instead of craven careerists.

Ever since I joined DU in February 2001, there have always been those Democrats and supporters of particular politicians who say, "We can't take a stand now, because we're in the minority. We can't take a stand now because Bush is too popular. We can't take a stand because we believe in bipartisanship. We can't take a stand because we don't want to appear obstructionist. Never mind that the Bush administration is committing war crimes or making life more difficult for hard-working people or trying to regulate our private lives or treating all of us as suspected terrorists or incarcerating people for indefinite terms without due process. Now is not the time to object."

I won't be at all surprised if these same people come up with new excuses, now that they have majorities in both houses.

[The Magistrate]

44. Yes, Ma'am, They Sought To Preserve Their Careers

That is what people do, and expecting them to anything else is to step out into the street with shoes on your head and a hat on your feet. That every now and then an individual is willing to sacrifice him or her self for what they conceive as a higher good is commendable, but is and will remain rare, and something of a surprise when encountered. Being a hero of conscience while out of office is one of those things that, put together with a couple of bucks, will get you a cup of coffee and a newspaper.

Quite likely, the actions of the Democratic majorities over the next couple of years will far short of what those you called "loonie leftists" would desire, but they are likely to track pretty closely to what the people of the country will support by large margins. They certainly will not include blocking funds for the military in Iraq: the people do not support that measure, and will not view it as a legitimate means to secure withdrawl.

"Those who can do, those who cannot do not."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Sir, we elect them not to preserve their own careers but

to represent us, to do what is best for the country, and to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As such, many of them have, on important occasions, failed to carry out the duties outlined in their job description, and with the flimsiest of excuses.

No heroism was called for, just awareness of and devotion to the requirements of their jobs.

[The Magistrate]

75. Oddly, Ma'am, Most People Actually Elected To Office

Are of the impression that it is their profesional business to remain in office. Palatable or not, that is a fact that must be reckonned with in anticipating or critiquing their behavior....

"It's as inevitable as death in Texas."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Sir, in the real world, people are expected to fulfill the duties

outlined in their job descriptions, and if they fail to do so, we do not excuse them by saying that they are concentrating on retaining their positions by other means.

[The Magistrate]

78. And Yet How Often, Ma'am

Do people rise in a corporate environment more through their skill at manipulating it to their own favor than any other discernable cause, while the people who actually do the work well remain as mere subordinate cogs in the workings of the company.

In the real world, political figures can be expected to operate with one eye out for their own survival in office, whether the consequences of its loss are relegation the lecture circuit and lobbying firms, or dying slow in a cellar. Pious declamations that they should not do this are all very well, but should not be mistaken for serious analysis of the workings of government.

"It's only a game if you win but if you lose it's a stinking waste of time."

[bread_and_roses]

88. Oh, amen to that. (n/t0

[Pithy Cherub]

39. Being an accessory before and after the fact

is chargeble under the law. Most of them have serious legal training. This war will go down as a war crime hence the international efforts to get it labeled as such while American prestige here and abroad have sunk to possibly the lowest levels ever.

Those who enabled the original Crime are complicit. It is not nice, it is not good, but there it is. Their moral authority is compromised and their judgment open to questioning based on their actions on Iraq. It is fact based, not opinion. If one values their integrity above all and seeks honor or nobility in leadership, then partaking in an Aye Vote for War undermines any infrastructure they have heretofore laid upon upholding principle, the Law, idealism and the ability to lead.

Many of us - and the general public were quiet during 2006, and those who voted for it mistakenly took it as acquiesence. Now it is time for those who so cravely held onto Bush's coattails for a pre-eminent war doctrine to not only apologize, but start on the LONG path to atonement. The value of their words are held in less esteem until their proven actions demonstrably show they are worthy of a vote, time, money and mostly respect going forward.

[ProSense]

40. Your "LONG path to atonement" should start with

Clark:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2996137&mesg_id=2996601

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2997218&mesg_id=2997245

[Pithy Cherub]

42. The damage done by the aye vote is something each SENATOR

has to live with as before the House Armed Services Committee Clark said do not do this. The smarter Senators and Representatives listened and heeded his words.

The facts are painful for you to swallow, but too bad. Many died because of a lack of political courage and heeding the clarion call of being president rather than listening to General Clark. You support a candidate that is on the LONG path to Atonement - help him, he needs it.

[ProSense]

45. The damage done by the

aye votes played out during the 2004 primaries. Guess who won?

[Pithy Cherub]

46. Guess who is delaying the next decision and lost in 2004?

[ProSense]

49. Seems to me

the only people who have announced are the ones who didn't run in 2004! The field is wide open!

[The Magistrate]

47. That, Ma'am, Is Simply Nonesense

No competent tribunal has ever, or will ever, try someone solely for a legislative vote. Statements like this are one reason the people of the country pay absolutely no attention to charges of "war crimes" emmanating from left activists: they are in so many instances so obviously hyperbolic posturings anyone can see are groundless.

[Pithy Cherub]

52. Internationally

they may not be tried but, that effort to make America responsible and accountable will continue whether you consider it nonsense or not. The erstwhile defense by Bush will be it was a bi-partainsan effort see these Aye votes. Guilt by association and saying Aye - complicity. If Honor, Respect or Integrity is what they chose to run on going forward, they have some-much ground to make up, hence the start of the Apologies.

On edit: My point was there will be war crime charges sought, especially against bush. Not especially that those who voted for it will be charged, but the spectre of this will be prevalent for a long time to come and they are attached to his heinous pre-eminent doctrine.

[The Magistrate]

54. Calling Something A Crime, Ma'am

Requires that it violate some applicable law, and that the thing is a matter for a court to adjudicate guilt or innocence of the person charged. Employed in any other manner, the word is simply a rhetorical club, and these are generally employed to try and raise heat rather than shed light, which almost never works with audiences that do not already agree whole hog with the view expressed.

There certainly have been acts that are crimes under international as well as U.S. law committed by this administration and its agents in the occupation fo Iraq, and more broadly in the campaign against al Queda, systematic maltreatment of prisoners, ordered from the highest levels of government, being chief among them. Shrill cries that a list of Democratic Senators are "war criminals" simply muddies waters that ought to be kept clear.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. Yes, and I

wnated to show clear separation before seeing your reply. Yes, but they are not complicit in the war crimes during the conduct. The separation is between how the doctrine was started as well as how it was engaged. It was started because the UN an international body was superseded by a vote with US senators on edit and representatives. That is the extent of their involvement. Bush wholly owns the heinous conduct. the fact remains that if they had voted no they would not even have this problem because they failed to get all of the facts before signing on to these egregious actions. For that they remain complicit.

[The Magistrate]

60. Voting For That Resolution, Ma'am, Is Not A Crime

You will be utterly unable to produce any statute by which it could be considered a crime, or any case law or precendent for regarding a vote for a resolution of that character as a criminal act.

[Pithy Cherub]

62. You are not getting what I am saying

or maybe I am not cearly writing it. They voted to enable Bush and give him legal cover to conduct the war. That is complicty in being for a war or pre-eminent doctrine - but within the US no one is going to charge Bush with a war crime. If, and big IF, the international community gets this Iraq action listed as a Crime for which there are reparations to be made, the US government must pay them. Those who voted for the War are part of the people that would be responsible for the condemnation that the US is currently garnering and would garner under those conditions. They may not be named, charged, or held for trial, but the certainly would be used by any defense that an American charged with the Crime saying it was the will of the American elected establishment, Congress. No washing gets that stain out that a legal action was taken by Americans to allow Bush to invade a country. But alas, that is moot as this country can't even be seen as upholding the international laws of the Geneva Conventions and have legalized torture again with an act of Congress including Democrats. The complicity of enablement is what this really about.

[The Magistrate]

63. What You Suggest, Ma'am, Is Not A Defense

No lawyer would urge that an administration official was simply doing what the political establishment of the U.S. wanted in a trial for some actual violation he or she was charged with being responsible for, such as the torture of prisoners. One who attempted it would be laughed out of court, and do nothing whatever to secure an acquittal for his or her client.

The line "Democrats are war criminals, too!" is utterly and absolutely useless, even destructive: no one who has a serious interest in prevailing in political contests in our country will ever employ it.

[Pithy Cherub]

66. Libby is arguing how busy he is...

The point is that you are correct a normal person would NOT argue it, but these are not normal people.

[The Magistrate]

69. And The Jury Will Be Much Amused By That, Too, Ma'am

Further, it is wholly different sort of charge. He is charged with telling a lie, and that is question where state of mind must be determined, for it is not a lie if you are not fully aware it is untrue, and know as you speak you are speaking falsely. The evidence against him is basicly items demonstrating he had been aprised of certain facts before he spoke contrary to them, and his defense is, well, I was so busy it slipped my mind, I did not remember reading that, being told that, and so on and so forth. Since the act requires a particular state of mind to be a crime, a defense rooted in his state of mind is a legitimate line, though he will probably fare no better with it than a husband who pleads he was so busy he forgot the today was his wedding anniversary....

[ProSense]

56. No one buys that! Bush tried that argument!

In fact, the majority of Americans (including some Republicans) in every poll have indicated they want Democrats to investigate the Bush admin on Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

58. yes, but they still have to own they voted for it

if they have presidential ambitions. To date the lone hold out for democrats is Hillary.

[mike_c]

55. I'm sorry, but that is simply not correct....

Apologists for the IWR enablers are still trying to get mileage out of that canard, but it's a flop and always has been. No democrat who voted against the IWR suffered any political consequences. Several of them, in fact, will find themselves promoted to important committee chairmanships in the next Congress. Where is the "political trap" you speak of? It existed only in their fearful imaginations.

[The Magistrate]

79. Your Apology Is Accepted, Sir, And Is An Apt Beginning

To your display of determined misunderstanding of the political processes at play.

The Democratic Party suffered greatly in the elections following that vote, and the trap was layed for the Party as a whole, not for particular individuals. The theme of the election pressed by the Republicans was that the Democrats could not be relied on to do what was needed to defend the country from peril, and the expressions of opposition by Democrats, such as they were, to various measures of the administration characterized as necessary for the defense of the country, were offered as proof, with votes against that resolution being among the examples employed. Those votes against the resolution were cast mostly by persons not up for re-election, or occuppying secure seats. Some who voted for the resolution went down to defeat anyway, because they were Democrats, and that vote was not enough to isolate them from the general attack against the Party on the above ground. That persons in secure seats, or who did not have to face the test of re-election that year, have bright futures now in a changed political climate, says nothing at all about circumstances in the fall of '02.

[mike_c]

82. well, you can repeat that justification all day long...

...but it doesn't change the fact that there have been no political consequences for dems who voted against the IWR, and therefore there is no tangible evidence that those voting FOR it were forced to do so because they faced dire consquences otherwise. The evidence following from actual events has proven just the opposite. The dems who voted against the IWR collected political capital for their forthright actions, and the ones who voted for it have accrued only negative baggage on account of it. One might argue that they simply showed bad judgement by misreading the political winds, but poor political judgement is not a desirable characteristic in government.

Spin that anyway you want-- the truth is out there.

[The Magistrate]

83. And Probably Will, Sir, Given Continued Requests To Do So

The available supply of coffee and cigarettes is more than adequate....

But there is no need for mere surface skirmishings here, and my preference is always for the jugular rather than the capillaries.

On your own statements above you did not vote for the Democratic Party's candidate for President in the last Presidential election, but rather for the candidate of the Green Party. You have stated numerous times in this forum that you would prefer, and even work for, the defeat of various Democratic Party candidates in general elections, evidently prefering the victory of a Republican who will certainly do the most harm possible to the people and the country to the victory of a Democrat who does not fully meet whatever idealist conceptions of political life you have managed to maintain, against all odds, well into mature years. Insistences by you on the culpabilities and failures, to your own peculiar lights, of various Democratic Party figures, do not exist in isolation from this body of commentary, and ought to be read in light of it.

"Say something once, why say it again?"

[mike_c]

84. that is beneath you sir-- entirely off topic and ad hominem....

Yes, to be clear, I am a proud liberal, and I don't reward politicians who undermine liberal ideals, no matter what letter they carry after their names. If you seek to shame me for that you've missed the mark considerably. I am very proud of my fidelity to liberal causes, even when sometimes at the cost of democratic party causes. I speak only for myself, of course-- I do not use this forum to evangelize for other parties, only to discuss the issues as honestly and forthrightly as possible.

You would do yourself more credit if you likewise stuck to the issues at hand rather than lashing out ad hominem. Your comments about me personally have no bearing on the issue of whether dems who voted against the IWR were at peril for doing so.

"Same as it ever was."

[The Magistrate]

86. Beneath Me, Sir? Surely You Jest

What is beneath the belly of an old snake but the very earth itself?

Why you would think it my object to shame you by referencing things you have proudly proclaimed yourself escapes me, unless it is the case that perhaps you are a bit less sure and proud of your actions than you let on. There could be sound reason for that, of course, since your "fidelity to liberal causes" has certainly in some instances worked to the solid benefit of reactionaries of the worst stripe, which is, to my way of thinking, a very odd way to demonstrate one's commitment to the advancement of left and progressive agendas.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make a better soup."

[bread_and_roses]

91. So if the war had been "successful" it would have been OK to kill Iraqis and sacrifice US

troops in the process to advance the Imperial designs of the illegitimate junta in power? I don't think so.

Your arguements are legitimate when applied to something like re-districting, or political horse-trading - "I'll vote for your Pork if you'll vote for mine" etc. - but we are talking about killing people here. It can't be undone, or rectified, or ameliorated.

To argue that we should condone such a vote out of purely political calculation means that nothing is worth fighting for - Civil Liberties? the Constitution? Oh, hell, just let them be dismantled to get the "security vote."

Nor do we have some magic mirror that can tell us what the political blow-back would have been had more Dems had the spine to speak out loudly and forcefully against the IRW. Nor do I accept any claim that the Dems were decieved or didn't know how the IRW would be used - people here knew, people all over this Country, all over the globe knew exactly what was going on - we are to think that our elected Reps were too stupid to get it?

However pragmatic your analysis, however much it reflects "the way things are" in correctly noting that for most Pols the ONLY thing that really matters to them is re-election, we - their constituents - have a different agenda, and have the right to hold those elected accountable to OUR priorities.

[The Magistrate]

92. That Is Not So Simple A Question, Ma'am, As You Seem To Suppose

One thing that can be stated certainly is that, had the venture been "successful" in the view of the public, there would be wide support for it among the people of the country, and no signifigant outcry or political backlash against its actual authors, the Republican administration and the Republican party. The people of the country have no particular set against imperialism, nor by and large do they feel they are ruled by an "illegitimate junta" even today. The public's present state of disenchantment with the occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with such boilerplate: it is not based on moral revulsion or any such high-toned item, but is grounded solely on the evident failure of the enterprise and the manifest incompetence with which it was directed.

As to the larger question of statecraft, whether it is worth some number of lives to achieve a state objective conceived as beneficial to the country and its people, the traditional answer, that it is, remains generally accepted by people, in this country and most everywhere else in the world. The real questions become things like, is the object of sufficient benefit to be worth the loss of life, and is there a good chance the desired object actually can be obtained by the means available to employ. The invasion of Iraq fails all these tests, as a question of national policy. Its real objective was the distortion of the political life of our own country in favor of the present administration, and that is hardly a national objective at all. The over-arching dream of "remaking the Middle East" driving some of the ideologues who actively promoted it is unachievable, certainly by the means that were employed and available to employ. The narrow profit motives of manipulating oil prices and war profiteering by favored contractors are, again, no national objective at all. Securing supply of a scarce and essential resourse would be a legitimate national object, worth a great many lives, but that has not been the result of the enterprise, and the desired resource was adequately available before it was undertaken, and so the invasion cannot be regarded as necessary on that score.

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. I knew that a vote for the IWR was a vote for war because I knew the justifications

... were all lies. "War is a last resort" was bullshit.

I'm going to give the people on your list some benefit of the doubt. It's possible that they didn't realize, or preferred to live in denial, that their commander in chief was a lying, psychopathic sack of shit.

[Katzenjammer]

30. "I'm going to give the people on your list some benefit of the doubt"

I can't imagine why you would. Aren't they supposed to be smarter and better informed than we are? God knows we pay them enough, and they have big staffs with no other job than to bring them information. Why should they get cut even a millimeter of slack when they flush thousands of lives, irreplaceable world treasures, and hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain?

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. I expect that they were fed more sophisticated lies.

The garden variety lies wouldn't do.

[Katzenjammer]

53. Are you sure anyone needed to?

It seems to me that they were pretty eager not to listen to contrary information.

[leftofthedial]

15. I voted for Kerry in 2004

because the only other choice was the bush cabal

I did not support Kerry in the primary

[ProSense]

31. That makes no sense!

You voted for someone you are now labeling a "criminal," no different from the lying war criminal in office now!

[leftofthedial]

43. I never labeled Kerry a criminal.

His support for IWR was wrong. If given the option (as I was during the 2004 primaries), I would support a Democrat who did not support IWR over a Democrat who did. But, as far as I know about who the possible candidates might be, I will vote for a Democrat over a repuke or a third-party shill.

I'll do the same in 2008. If possible, I'll support a Democrat who did not enable king george's crimes during the primaries. In the general election, I'll support the Democratic nominee.

I still believe, though, that if we do not call the bush cabal to account for their crimes, especially if that is coupled with electing an IWR enabler to the Presidency in 2008, we will send the wrong message to the rest of the world--one that will make it even harder to rehabilitate our international reputation.

I hope we find a candidate who never supported the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[bleever]

16. I thought the IWR was the big stick the prez needed so that diplomacy

could succeed.

That's what he told us it was.

Remember? He promised that war was the last resort, after all diplomatic possibilities were exhausted.

What he meant by exhausted was "extinguished".

I'm the President, he said, And I need to prove that I'm negotiating from a position of maximum strength, so that I can NEGOTIATE successfully.

It was a con job.

IWR was a cheat.

I'm a citizen of the USA who gives a damn, and I approve this message.

[cali]

19. I KNEW the IWR was

a blank check. So did my reps in Congress. And all of them said exactly that.

[Crunchy Frog]

26. And you actually believed him?

I could tell that he was hell bent on an invasion, and that he was only looking for as many fig leaves as he could possibly get in order to give it some sort of legitimacy.

I have a very difficult time respecting any elected official who had worse judgement about something like this than I did.

As far as the Dems who voted for this, I think a few of them actually wanted a war (Lieberman), but most of them were making a cynical political calculation. I really don't buy that any of the were decieved by Bush. Maybe I'm being unduly harsh here.

[bleever]

71. No, I knew he was lying, but the "official" story

was that he needed the authority in order to force a diplomatic solution.

I don't think you're being unduly harsh, but I do think there really was some degree of trusting the "official" intelligence mixed in with the cynical political calculation that clearly kept Congresspersons from doing their due diligence.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. I can't even take this seriously because your list is completely wrong

Mikulski voted Nea. Lautenberg, Pryor, Salazar, and Menendez were not in the senate in 2002. Salazar and Pryor were Attorney Generals at the time of this vote. Lautenberg was a retired Senator. Menendez was in the House of Representatives and voted Nea.

Meanwhile your list misses Tom Daschle, Zell Miller, John Breaux, Bob Toricelli, John Edwards, and Fritz Hollings.

[ProSense]

29. OK, here is the new list:

Did you cast a vote for any of the Democrats you refer to as "criminals" from 2002-2006?

If so, do you consider yourself an accomplice or a hypocrite?
Here are the Senators who voted yes on the IWR:

Baucus, Max
Biden, Joseph
Cantwell, Maria
Clinton, Hillary
Dorgan, Byron
Edwards, John
Feinstein, Dianne
Harkin, Tom
Johnson, Tim
Kerry, John
Landrieu, Mary
Lieberman, Joseph
Lincoln, Blanche
Nelson, Ben
Nelson, Bill
Reed, Jack
Rockefeller, John
Reid, Harry
Schumer, Charles


The taste test still stands.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Ken Salazar wasn't in the Senate yet, but I know he agreed with it.

I voted for him because I had to. It was tle lesser of two evils on that one for me. The Dems needed every Senate seat we could get, even bad Dems.

Nevertheless, he will never get my vote again. His support for the 3rd party candidate who ran against the Democrat in CT has freed me to support a 3rd party candidate against him the next time he runs, which I intend to do.

I consider myself a pragmatist, choosing the lesser of two evils. My pragmatism only goes so far though. Other people may want to call me something else. If so, I can only say that the feeling is mutual. :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Nope, I was living in Oregon, and

all the Oregon Dems, both those in the House and Senator Wyden, voted against the IWR. Portland saw some of the largest and most extensive protests against the Bush regime all through 2001 and 2002, and the Oregon delegation got the message, unlike some of the chickenhearts on the list.

[Pithy Cherub]

34. DiFi sure didn't get my vote.

And Kerry received a very grudging one in 2004 and only because I was implored to do so by Wes Clark. I imagined I was voting for Teresa who I adore.

[SaveElmer]

35. I find folks are quick to label these Democrats...

As Warmongers, traitors, CYA artists...yadda, yadda, yadda...

But they are less willing to acknowledge the logical extension of their namecalling...like

Why would they vote for a warmonger for President for example...

Or do they truly believe men like Tom Harkin and Max Cleland would willingly sacrifice the lives of young American soldiers simply to cover their ass!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

38. Are you familiar with the concept of repentance and redemption?

Are you also aware that in an undemocratic political system, such as ours, in which elections are controlled by two parties beholden to their corporate sponsors, the alternative to the Democratic candidate is often a crypto-nazi Xtian-Taliban candidate?

Evan Bayh is my Senator.

[Pale Blue Dot]

65. In fact, I actvely worked AGAINST Lieberman

...as did the majority of Democrats in CT.

[PassingFair]

77. Every one of those senators

made a SICKENING and CYNICAL vote for WAR.

They knew that they would be politically set
for life if the bushies miraculously pulled
off their theft of the resources of the middle
east, and they knew that they could scream that
they were lied to if the more likely scenario
of total FUBAR occurred. Which it did.


I BLAME them, along with ALL of the REPUBLICANS
for the death of OVER HALF A MILLION INNOCENT
IRAQI CITIZENS. Not to mention THOUSANDS of
American troops killed and injured, the BANKRUPTCY
of American families and INDUSTRY, that is ONLY
NOW becoming an AVALANCHE in the industrial north.

Only Edwards had the guts to admit that he FUCKED UP.
The rest spin and spin their CYNICAL vote.

We need to keep in mind that the MAJORITY of SITTING dems
in BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE did NOT vote to authorize war.

We DO need to put their feet to the fire. We DO need to
write and protest and ask that the cynical, roll-over enablers
NOT be put in positions where courage is called for.

[seabeyond]

85. i never thought it was a vote for war. was clear distinguishing the

difference for me. i remember the situation in 2002 and the rush to get that vote thru before election and what that vote was.... all political. and i remember the standards it held for bush and bush ignoring what the senate voted on. it is ALL on bush shoulders, clearly

[mike_c]

87. it wasn't just the election-- Iraq had agreed to unconditional...

...inspections a month earlier, and the neocons-- not just Bush, but the neocons in the administration and their enablers in Congress-- had to get the invasion underway before Hans Blix could certify Iraq in compliance with the U.N mandate. I believe this is additional evidence of Bush's lying-- the administration knew, or at least knew of evidence, that its claims about Iraqi weapons programs were not true. It had to cover that lie by circumventing the U.N. inspectors.

[LWolf]

89. I voted for two. John Kerry, in '04.

I voted angrily, full of resentment because I felt like I had no choice. I resented his IWR vote, I resented the Democrats who put him on the ballot, and I resented that he was the only legitimate vote to get * out of office. I resented his campaign, beginning with what seemed to me like a pro-war Democratic Convention. I REALLY resented the chain-link cage provided for dissenters near said convention, and I haven't forgiven the eviction of Medea Benjamin. I resented Kerry's concession after receiving my vote. I regret the vote.

I also voted for Feinstein a couple of times, but the last vote she got from me was BEFORE her IWR vote.

I don't consider myself an accomplice or a hypocrite, thank you very much. I campaigned and voted for a nominee in the primaries that did not vote for the IWR, and was outvoted by mainstream Democrats. Their mistake, not mine, in my opinion. I will say this; I'm tired of it, and I won't do it again. When mainstream Democrats nominate someone I don't want to vote for, I'm not going to. Period. I'll put my efforts into the primaries. If I get a candidate I can honestly vote for, great. If not, I won't. The Democratic process at work.

If I can be honest about that, it would be nice if those who work to nominate a candidate can honestly accept that their choice may alienate and lose some votes, and take responsibility for that. :shrug: