IWR apologies - my two cents

[welshTerrier2]

i almost feel that I should apologize for yet another thread on this ... the thing is, though, that I still feel that there's a whole lot of floundering going on and this issue SHOULD reflect on the values and the judgment of future candidates ... that's because all important historical events are fair game for evaluating future candidates ...

my position on candidates who voted for the IWR and have since apologized and said their vote was wrong is that they should be forgiven IF AND ONLY IF their apologies are for "the right reasons" and IF AND ONLY IF the lessons they say they've learned would give us reasonable cause to assume they would not make the same tragic mistake again ... I am aware that several DU'ers I respect very much do not agree that those who voted for the IWR should ever be forgiven ... I respect and understand that point of view; I don't agree with it as a blanket statement ...

and I will not jump into the semantic idiocy of whether the IWR was a vote for war ... that debate has been spun around in circles on DU to a dizzying degree ... you think it was a vote for war? you think it wasn't? i see no point in further discourse on the subject - any further debate on the subject will influence absolutely no one so what's the point? just to argue and make some noise attacking or defending candidates? no thanks ... i have my opinion on the matter; debate, at least for me, is now closed ...

here's why, beyond "it was/wasn't a vote for war", that a vote for the IWR was so tragic ... here's why it was so wrong ... here's why no Democrat should have voted for it ...

there are two excellent articles online that discuss all-too-clearly who the BIG WINNERS on Iraq have been? wanna take a guess before I tell you? here are the links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/ike-was-right_b_37251.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,456212,00.html

Too lazy to read the articles? no problem (although they are both excellent) ... the first article makes a strong case that Iraq, like every other war, is fought for the exclusive benefit of the military-industrial complex ... to add my own point to that belief, I see the selling of FEAR as the central advertising theme for the MIC ... sell more FEAR; sell more war; sell more weapons ... GOT IT? GOOD! the second article talks about the BIG WIN Iraq has been for BIG OIL ... they've already made record profits in the oil industry since the invasion of Iraq; they're loving this war ... why would they ever want it to end? but the public pressure to end the war has grown much too strong to sustain the occupation much longer ... are the poor little dears all upset? nope, because now it is time to "cash out their chips" ... if you read the second article, you'll see they've been able to exploit a desperately weak Iraqi government, with the aid of good old Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank, and force the Iraqis to essentially give away most of their future oil revenues ...

so, let's state this as clearly and succinctly as possible: the Iraq war was motivated by corporate greed in the MIC and in the oil industry ...

now, let's return to the "apologizers" ... those who merely say they were "duped by bad intelligence" give absolutely no indication that they either know why bush and cheney pushed this war OR they fully understand it and are unwilling to speak the truth about American corporate greed to the American people ... is it fair to expect anyone to accept their bogus apologies? surely, sometime in the not too distant future, the MIC and BIG OIL boys will promote their next campaign of fear and beat the war drums again ... it's their primary modus operandi ...

without clearly demonstrating that they understand this essential reality, apologies for destructive IWR votes are meaningless ... in those cases, the apologizers should NOT BE FORGIVEN ... an acceptable apology must contain an acknowledgment not just that their action was wrong but WHY IT WAS WRONG ... and blaming the bush administration's lies and deceit, while a good issue to raise, does not rise to the standard of an acceptable apology ... what we need from the apologizes, and from all future Democratic candidates, is a recognition of the true motives for this war and probably for most if not all wars ... this is NOT pacifism or isolationism being defended here; it's a recognition that the US spends more on its death weapons than all the other countries in the world COMBINED ... to argue that Saddam would have taken his skeletal army and launched an attack against the US strains the outer boundaries of genuine insanity ...

to conclude, what is demanded here is an "apology of substance" ... in fact, more important than the mea culpa is a more forward-looking recognition that the MIC and BIG OIL are poisoning our foreign policy and leading our country into devastating, unnecessary wars ... we should also demand that the institutions that allowed this to happen, i.e. the perverting influence of corporate America on our democracy and on our country's best interests, are in desperate need of reform ... two specific examples of these reforms include severe lobbying reform and publically financed campaigns ... if our candidates are unwilling to speak out against the real motivations for the invasion of Iraq, frankly they can keep their apologies ... and to argue that bush did it merely for revenge or to show up his father or for political gain is just not adequate ... the reason for this war was, is and will remain pure corporate greed ...

we need to know that future candidates, regardless of their IWR votes or positions, will not allow the greed of the MIC and BIG OIL to ever, ever let this happen again ...

NOTE: no candidates were harmed in the writing of this thread!

Comments?

[The Count]

1. Also, merely voting for IWR is way less than sponsoring the damn thing

For Edwards and Joementum to have pushed a thing saying Saddam did 911 and now to get away with "oops" (Edwards) and be hailed as a progressive because he replaced the mill worker to NOLA photo ops -:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
And then his supporters reply to me: "What do you want? Blood?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244
He did cause bloodshedding, but I have no need for his. Not running would be a nice start in amends....

[Pithy Cherub]

2. Apologies for the sake of apologizing are meaningless.

Forgiveness does not imply that because a cursory apology was issued it should translate into a vote for president. An apology that is sincerely proffered also follows with a commitment to atone for the egregious error and lapse in judgment. The atonement is predicated on full disclosure that is sincere and explains fully. Anything less than that is a political parlor trick to elicit votes. The IWR vote was an opportunity to stand against MIC and big oil and instead Democrats (I expect most republicans to be craven) bathed in the oil as if it was the nectar of Ares.

That vote will live in vile horror, bloodshed and unending shame forever and it is not a worthy platform to use politically to garner votes. To be forthcoming on that vote means discussing ambition in all of its permutations. What bothers me most is that those who voted aye would like to diminishes the import and impact of the loss of life and American treasure by saying they were wrong but not show contrition or a long term effort to atone and repent their horrid views. Running for president should be the last thing people of conscience would do in order to atone for enabling such a blight and cancer on America's Honor.

Without Courage, none of the other virtues may be practiced. Let's see some courage. It was not courageous to apologize, that was an easy call in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[mtnsnake]

3. It's 1 thing to apologize a week later but to wait until it was "safe" to do so is FEEBLE

and self serving. I gave the same reply in a different thread....

Notice how these people who are saying it was a mistake didn't do so until the war had long become so unpopular nation wide that it's just a little too obvious where they're coming from.

Any of our candidates who voted for it, whether it's Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, or whomever...they ALL knew that Bush was lying. They voted yes because they knew it was the political thing to do for THEM, not the right thing to do. None of them could possibly have been that stupid that they really thought that the IWR was the right thing to do at the time. They were all thinking about their own political futures because at that time the country was all geared up for the stupid war, and they didn't want to go against the grain, even though they knew they were WRONG not to do so.

[monarch]

5. mtnsnake nails it!

[Donna Zen]

8. Why they voted "yea" and why they apologize

Some of them voted "yea" because of personal political gain...Hillary is among those by the admission of her pollster that the "yea" vote put her in a better position. She also continues to conflate Iraq with 911/GWOT---very bad.

In the case of Biden and Edwards, my sense is that they really believed that getting rid of Saddam would clean the swamp for democracy. That of course shows very bad judgment since the entire concept was flawed, and thus, tells me that neither of those people can be trusted with future crucial decisions.

Then there are "yea" voters who just wanted out of Washington and couldn't be bothered to fight for what was right.

While we can't see the future, we can know that there will be tough decisions in our future. Why, when and how they apologize means nothing to me...I shrug and what watch the death count rise from the greatest strategic blunder that my country has ever made. I firmly believe that those who voted "yea" should be kept far away from the reins of foreign policy.

[CarolNYC]

24. Agreed....

This is my problem with Edwards. It's not just that he voted for or even cosponsored the IWR, it's how hawkish his statements were, how gung-ho he was for the invasion of Iraq in the lead up to it..and, I guess, even after it was obvious what a mistake it was. Edwardiacs can dismiss and denigrate my criticism of the former Senator because I'm a Clark supporter (that's how they always seem to answer any such criticism) but the truth of the matter is that I knew I could never support Edwards for the Democratic nomination well before I'd even heard the name Wes Clark. He was way way too hawkish for me. I supported Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham until Wes jumped in.

And, while Clark was out there trying everything he could, and imploring others to do so as well, to tone down the rhetoric against Iran before things were too far gone there, Edwards was out there talking tough about how “We cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons”, even if it meant taking military action against Iran.

I’m really glad that Mr. Edwards now, finally, sees the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and wants to bring the troops home…but I don't feel that I can trust that he won't send them off again on some other ill-conceived military intervention. I just don’t feel comfortable with the pattern of invading countries we shouldn’t be invading and then pulling up stakes and leaving those countries a mess when we realize, oops, it was a mistake. I want someone who’s going to keep us out of the confrontations in the first place. I haven't seen or heard anything from Edwards to make me trust that he is that guy. I'm not saying that I think Edwards would definitely pull us into another war given the chance. I just don't trust him to do everything possible to keep us out of one.

I do trust that Clark would do so. I trust that Gore and Kerry (IWR vote notwithstanding) would as well. I admit I don't know enough about Obama, Richardson or Dodd and some of the others to know if I can feel I can trust them on this.

[SaveElmer]

10. mtnsnake...I usually agree with you...

But I gotta ask, and I ask this alot in these threads and I never get a straight answer...

Max Cleland voted for the IWR...knowing his history in VietNam etc...do you really think he would vote for this for political reasons...knowing as most claim that it would have resulted in the death of thousands of American soldiers?

I do agree that apologies now are meaningless...and if, as I believe, that most of the Democrats voting yes were behaving responsible, are not required. An acknowledgement that it was the incorrect decision is appropriate, and virtually all have done so (except cheerleader Joe)

[mtnsnake]

21. Elmer, if you check my post again, you'll see I was referring to "candidates"

...as far as the ones doing it for "political reasons".

Any of our candidates who voted for it, whether it's Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, or whomever...they ALL knew that Bush was lying. They voted yes because they knew it was the political thing to do for THEM, not the right thing to do.

[SaveElmer]

22. Wasn't Cleland a candidate....

He was running for reelection in 2002...

[mtnsnake]

23. I mentioned the ones I was talking about & it was potential presidential ones only

Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards, who were all potential future presidential candidates at the time. As far as Max Cleland, who is someone that I've always admired greatly, btw, I don't think he did it for political reasons at all. That much should be obvious, considering he's one of the few who have actually walked the walk when it comes to war and sacrifice. Anyway, I didn't have Cleland in mind when I posted, just presidential candidates, as is pretty obvious when I said "candidates" and only named "Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards".

[SaveElmer]

31. Well with all due respect...

Seems like an arbitrary line to draw...

John Kerry certainly walked the walk in terms of sacrifice...Silver and Bronze Star, 3 purple hearts

Tom Harkin too, reelected in 2002 was a veteran as well...also voted for the IWR...

There is no real evidence these people did not take their vote as seriously as Cleland...I've read all their statements very carefully and they are remarkably similar in the reasons they voted the way they did.

[mtnsnake]

33. We're off on a tangent now. Anyway, what I originally said about candidates

and I did mean presidential candidates, the ones I mentioned, and the point I originally made about them.

You're good, though, Elmer! :toast:

[trashcanistanista]

13. They underestimated the intelligence of the American people

which yes, is an easy thing to do considering two term * and the fear mongering that got him there. But they didn't count on it coming back to haunt them. They were disconnected in a huge way and most still are. If their careers suffer for it so be it.

[GreenArrow]

17. "They (mis)underestimated the intelligence of the American people"

I'd say they estimated just about right.

[paulk]

18. has it come back to "haunt them"?

I've seen precious little evidence of that. Please point me toward any (Democratic) politician who has suffered at the polls because of a "yes" vote on the IWR.

[dave_p]

4. A harsher standard

I'm ready to forgive those who've recognised their mistake and learned the lessons. But we're entitled to expect them to show consistently that they have learned, and won't blunder into the same behavior again. We need to know that they will demand the evidence, ask the questions and withhold assent if an unassailable, cast-iron case can't be presented. I think they have to go further in assuring us than those who voted against. Grudging half-baked remarks that next time things might be a bit different aren't enough.

[Sparkly]

6. Did anyone actually apologize? nt

[MH1]

7. The IWR was and is meaningless, except as a tool to divide Democrats.

The President has the power to order military action in the case of an "imminent threat."

That is as it should be. (If your reaction is that it shouldn't, please stop an think about some genuine "imminent threat" scenarios.)

If the President is willing to lie about a threat and order military action, there is NOTHING Congrss can do to stop it.

If we have a President who will do that, the fault is squarely on those who voted for him in the first place.

Meanwhile, once troops are "in harm's way" and the public has been manipulated into believing that a threat exists, then it is exceedingly hard to de-fund the war effort.

Bush was going to invade Iraq, and the IWR didn't matter. IWR was a win-win for Rove, because no matter how a member voted, their vote could be turned against them.

A better question to look for accountability on, imo, is why, in a Democratic-controlled Senate, did the IWR come to a vote in the first place?

[Pithy Cherub]

12. The Constitution made three co-equal branches of Government.

Most certainly contained within the Legislative Branch is the power of Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors as well as the power of the purse. Congress abdicated its responsibilities with regards to the War Powers Act and many put their John Hancock's on it as a validation. It is disingenuous to raise the Executive Branch above the other two branches when a system of checks and balances is designed for this very instance. The IWR vote was a failure of two branches of government and those failures are being validated by decisions from the Judicial Branch including the Supreme Court.

The IWR vote speaks to a failure to defend the Constitution against All Enemies Foreign and Domestic. To shrug and say that the the Executive was going to do it anyway highlights even more strongly a failure of the Legislative Branch and Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, they willfully and knowingly abdicated their sworn Oaths of Office. That is unacceptable to anyone who holds the Constitution as a founding document and the Rule of Law as paramount. Those who voted Aye failed America at its core.

[Critters2]

27. I argued this position at the time--til I was blue in the face!!

Congress declares war, and has no power to cede that authority to the Executive!! I was SOOO angry that people wouldn't see this!! I DON'T want a president with so little understanding of the Constitution!

[The Count]

19. Than why was it sponsored by 2 democrats? (one with continuing presidential ambitions)

Why were Edwards and Joementum sponsoring (i.e- pushing for, fostering, getting others on board etc) this resolution?
It's very simple to say bush started the war, Dems just didn't have the clout to oppose it.
Except that opposing it was a matter of both principle and integrity - as it regarded life and death, not just politics.
I also believe that those sponsoring the law are co-authors of the war abomination while those who voted for are merely accomplices.

[Critters2]

28. Yep--another problem for me. Edwards didn't just vote for the IWR

He sponsored it. I smell political opportunism. Another quality I don't want in my president.

[leftofthedial]

9. anyone who voted for IWR and now claims they were misled

will get my support only if they now make impeachment their number one priority.

a president misleading congress is treasonous and impeachable and undermines the very foundation of our republic

[MindPilot]

11. Well said! I agree with you.

Let's not forget that there were those who did NOT vote for IWR, who were NOT "deceived".

Being one of the millions who could figure out what Bush would do with that power using nothing more than a couple braincells and a modem, I have about about as much understanding for a rep or a Senator who was "deceived" by Bush as I do for someone who lost money to a Nigerian fund transfer.

Apologize? It better be a damn good one if you want my vote in '08.

[Critters2]

26. My thoughts exactly.

I could figure it out. What does that say for someone who couldn't? Hardly makes 'em presidential material, imo.

[trashcanistanista]

14. Impeachment

well I guess that would make this bitter pill a little easier to swallow, and I may, just say may, find a little forgiveness in my heart. And I mean starting NOW.

[ProSense]

15. Some information!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2998938&mesg_id=2998938

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2885625&mesg_id=2885625

[GreenArrow]

16. Ready. Take Aim. Fire!

Hit target, dead center.

I am sick to death of these insulting fake apologies, and the fawning and goggling idolatry that accompanies them.

You laid this issue out perfectly. Kicked and Recommended.

[AtomicKitten]

20. This conversation reminds me of many

I had with my then young son, a child responsible for every one of my gray hairs. His semiannual suspension from school for organizing his seasonal eating (and purging) contests - eggnog-chugging in the winter, Peeps-eating in the spring - culminated in hosing down the quad.

From an early age when confronted with the consequences of his assorted pranks, he would come to me all flustered, words spilling out in defense of his misbehavior. I would always preface our conversation with the admonition that I would listen to his excuses but that he needed to understand what he did was wrong (against school rules) and there was nothing he could say that would excuse it.

I am very clear on the IWR, its ramifications and its consequences, and there are many. In my mind, there is no excuse any Democrat could give that would excuse a yes vote. Much "information" is proffered as excuses by those here on behalf of those that voted yes. This "information" is given breathlessly, smugly, with such certainty that surely it mitigates the yes vote.

But, again, I have to say with absolutely clarity as I once told my son, there is nothing anyone can say that justifies the faulty decisions regarding war and torture. That is how I feel and it will not be shaken by ridicule nor moved by rationalization.

[Donna Zen]

25. Meeting the bar:

The least we can expect from a candidate is "good judgment" otherwise we are in for a very rough ride. Making all of the apologies in won't change a thing. Let's say that the war while bad was not reviled by the public, would these candidates be apologizing? Oh, I think not. Edwards said that he would still vote for the invasion knowing that there were no WMD.

Besides, if as a previous poster writes that no "yes" voter is being held accountable in the polls, then we really are sunk. To think that such terrible judgment is now OK.

No, setting the bar to include an ability to think of the country first, doing the difficult when it is the right thing to do, and having a firm grip on what is illegal and illegal, is not asking too much.

If we let this pass; if we let feeble excuses pass for leadership, then expect to see these nightmares happen again. For then we are the do-nothing public without spines or brains.

[Critters2]

29. Well said!! Thank you!!! nt

[AtomicKitten]

30. Some here at DU misconstrue this position

as arrogance when it is simply clarity on a gut-level moral conviction.

To each his own, but I know who I am and have no doubts on this issue and the fact that is it incumbent upon us as citizens to hold our leaders responsible for actions taken on our behalf.

[Donna Zen]

32. Arrogance is just a word

I noticed that it was used without context. We are all permitted our opinion, and should be able to give it without being labeled with negative names signifying nothing.

I've never to the best of my knowledge joined in on one of "spineless Dems" threads; however, how useful are those rants if when the time comes to act out our dissatisfaction, we fail. If we don't act, then we will continue to be ignored and we deserve it.

Now my congressman has displeased me at various times including the torture vote. I've voiced my opinion to him directly, and I will continue to monitor his votes, but he is one among many and thus, he vote is tempered. Also, before the war when he was running in our republican leaning district, he came out against this war. His record is mixed. Of course he is not running for the office with maximum authority over foreign policy.

Apologies are much welcome and accepted, but they can never replace good judgment and leadership when those qualities were most needed. This war has cost our country dearly, but the true cost will be the debt paid by generations to come. Our children and their children will suffer for the arrogance of those who supported this damn war.

Thank both of you for your support of my opinion.

[The Count]

34. Bookmarking this post. You said it all.