True or False: A Presidential candidate who voted for the IWR is unfit for the Presidency.

[Nutmegger]

I have seen many many posts here condemning the Dem presidential candidates who voted for the IWR, and rightly so because it's a vote that deserves condemnation.

But does that mean that they are the same person they were in 2002? Are they able to redeem themselves, or are they forever typecast as the "Dem who voted for the IWR" no matter what he / she has said or done up to now?

[tired_old_fireman]

1. How about if they voted to fund the war?

Is that voting for the war?

[Nutmegger]

6. Some would say that voting for the funding is the same as voting for the war.

However, my question deals strictly with the IWR.

Welcome to DU BTW. :toast:

[FrenchieCat]

7. funny how some want to equate funding a war that is already being fought with

pushing and co-sponsoring that same war BEFORE it even began; a war that should have never even been fought.

[Dawgs]

25. Only if you're a Kucinich supporter.

[maximusveritas]

44. Exactly, they just try to use that to differentiate Kucinich from Obama

but then when you point out that plenty of other anti-war Senators and Congressmen also voted to fund the war after voting against the war authorization, they try to run away from the argument. In the midst of the primary wars, they can get away with saying Obama is a supporter of the war because he voted for funding. But try to get them to apply that same logic to someone like Feingold and they run away crying.

[Colobo]

2. They saw the "evidence" Bush had against Iraq. They had the power in their hands

to avoid this mess and they did not. They supported it. That's bad judgement.

[zalinda]

12. I seem to remember a post here at DU

that said that the "evidence" had been cooked. That they were given false evidence and I think that was according to the FBI or CIA. It's garbage in, garbage out. If you aren't given the correct facts, how can you make a correct decision. We have no idea what was done to the "evidence", no one can get any papers out of this WH. I prefer to place blame after I have ALL the facts, but I'm pretty sure Bush & Co lied.

zalinda

[Cameron27]

18. Some of the intel was cooked,

but that was evident in the classified NIE documents, which they would have known if they'd taken the time to read it.

[Netbeavis]

26. Obama was first elected to the Senate in 2004 and therefore did not cast a vote on the 2002 Iraq wa

so all of his talk is "hypothetical" when compared to the actual votes cast by Clinton, Biden and Edwards.

[jillan]

27. Thank you.

I have been saying the same thing all along.

It is so easy to be on the outside looking in.

But who knows if something or someone may have changed his mind if he was in the inside.

Biden was going to vote no, until someone looked him straight in the eye and lied to him.

Obama didn't vote for it because he did not vote.

[Colobo]

54. Bull. He denounced the war in 2002, when it was unpopular to do so.

He put his political future at risk for what he believed was right. That's called integrity and judgement.

[Netbeavis]

60. That is hardly an example of either

Could've, would've doesn't count. Its conjecture at best.

You can't bang on someone who voted while the man you demagogue sat on the sidelines.

[Lucinda]

3. False.

And I am sooooooo tired of seeing the same posts a zillion times.
I care more about what they are doing NOW.

[FrenchieCat]

4. If they waited 3 years later to apologize, right before running for Prez......and if

They co-sponsored the Blank check and voted down alternative amendments that would have slowed the shit down all the while sitting on the Intelligence Committe and having access to the Classified NIE that clearly showed large holes in the case Bush was making for war.....

and if their Op-Ed showed up on the State Department's website and was used by Bush to sell his war.....and that Op-Ed linked 9/11 to Saddam.....

then I would say that yes, they are not worthy of my vote to now become leader of this land.

This was not a little mistake, this was one of the biggest blunder in American history.

AND 5 years is not that long considering that some have been running for President or Vice President almost all of those 5 years.

[Catchawave]

5. Did Kerry go through this in 2004 on DU.....?

I got here after the primaries. I remember the flip flopping, purple heart bandaids and Swift Boat Vets, but those were Republicans?

[Lucinda]

8. He was beat up here pretty well too. :) nt

[FrenchieCat]

9. Even though he didn't even co-sponsor the Blank check.....

Yes, Kerry was held accountable.....and so this is nothing new, it is just important to quite a few.

[Seabiscuit]

10. What if they made one speech condemning the war, then when joining the Senate in 1/05 voted for

every Iraq War spending bill Bush wanted.

Sound unlikely?

Can you say Barack Obama?

[AtomicKitten]

13. there is about 14 miles between starting a war and funding a war

He voted "no" on funding last go, and will again unless it has some definite pull-out dates attached.

And for those that try to insinuate Obama might have voted for the war (even though he came out clearly against the war in 2002), the point is that Edwards and Hillary DID vote for the war. Worse, Edwards co-sponsored and rallied for the war.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Don't blame Obama for the war that Hillary and Edwards helped start.

[Seabiscuit]

15. No one's insinuating anything.

To point out that he's voted to fund the war after he joined the Senate isn't even anywhere close to insinuating that he voted for the war when he wasn't even a member of the Senate with the ability to do so.

[Seabiscuit]

57. Re: your title: not really - every year a war's funded it gets restarted.

[AtomicKitten]

62. On that point we disagree.

I see the IWR as catastrophic on a number on levels, not the least of which is that Congress abdicated their constitutionally mandated war-declaring powers to a moron.

However, I think we can agree it needs to stop by any means necessary, which is why Obama stopped the funding as of last vote. Enough is enough.

[Seabiscuit]

64. Actually, we agree on both of those points.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Not all votes are the same, Edwards helped to market the war

by connecting the need to invade with the attacks on 9/11 in his speech and he voted no on amendments that tried to place some checks on the IWR. Maybe because he cosponsored the bill he thought it was perfect :shrug:

[Jim Sagle]

14. Kucinichite hogwash!

[GreenArrow]

24. Hogwash?

I hate to break it to ya, but Kucinich was right, unlike the crooked mouth forked tongue speaking panderer in your avatar.

[slick8790]

32. I find Kucinich worse in his issue changes than JE.

Wanna know why?

Edwards has changed his opinion about a constantly evolving issue, the Iraq war. Most people have altered their view of it somewhat since the vote in 2002. Opinions change as issues change. Now why would Kucinich change his opinion on abortion in 2003? Nothing has changed about abortion, and the debate has certainly not evolved like the Iraq war debate. Why would he change his opinion, then?

Is it possible St. Kucinich found that a presidential run would be hard to pull off as a pro-life democrat? Possibly. Is it possible he came to his sense about choice and started voting the right way? Just as possible. The fact is every democrat in this race has made some bad votes, took some bad positions. But should it disqualify all of them from the presidency?

[FrenchieCat]

36. "constantly evolving issue"? IRAQ?

:wtf:

What-E-ver! :eyes:

[GreenArrow]

63. nah. Kucinich saw the obvious from the get go.

Edwards chose to go serve himself and go with the flow on IWR, and then did so again when his original position became untenable. Note, he didn't change his position because he had a change of mind, he changed it because he warn't gettin' no love from his intitial chicken-shit one. Whatever makes Johnny Edwards look good, I guess.

As for St. Dennis (that's funny, considerin' that St. John -- at least accordin' to his thralls -- ain't never done nothin' wrong, no matter how many times he contradicts himself, no matter how insincerely he markets himself, no matter how many times he comes out on the wrong side of his own comparisons.

Kucinich didn't change his position to run; he was drafted to run after his Prayer for America speech. His abortion position had already changed prior to that, and his reasons for doing so make logical sense and don't insult the intelligence the way Johnny boy Edwards' do. The boys' pure snake oil.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. No IWR voting dem will become president (nt)

[Catchawave]

22. Kerry did, well almost n/t

[blm]

30. Why? Are the voting machines only rigged against them?

Are voters suppressed only because of a candidate's support for a resolution?

[Milo_Bloom]

31. No, b/c many Dems and Independents won't vote for one (nt)

[blm]

33. Kerry won. RNC stole that election for Bush.

Rove's involvement in US attorney firings ring a bell?

Rather's report on electronic voting machines and their deliberate 'problems' since 1999 ring a bell?

Elections have NOTHING to do with IWR. IWR was a resolution - IWR didn't take this country to war, though it has been spun that way, conveniently letting Bush off the hook for ignoring the weapon inspectors' reports.

IWR was working to prevent war as the weapon inspectors were proving - Bush lied to make his determination and the blame was spun unto the resolution.

Anyone who supported the war AFTER weapon inspectors were working to prove war wasn't necessary is another story and THOSE who did should be held to account. The IWR was doing its job when weapon inspectors were doing theirs. Bush had to LIE to have his war.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. The IWR had nothing to do with inspections.

Can we stop telling this lie? Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors 3 weeks BEFORE the IWR vote.

The IWR was a vote for war. That's reality.

I held my nose and voted for Kerry last time, but would never do that again. Most people wouldn't vote for another IWR voter again either.

No Democratic IWR voter will win.

Take it to the bank.

[blm]

38. Right - because you wouldn't vote for someone who actually HAD a plan to leave Iraq

One he developed to accomodate the needs of the UN to get them to take over in Iraq by summer of 2005?

Or - if he ran again - you would reject Kerry-Feingold withdrawal plan?

Or - if he ran again - you would reject the best chance this nation has to get the books opened on BushInc?

You would not vote for the one guy we KNOW would reveal all the documents on IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning. Because he voted for a resolution that was WORKING and proving force was not necessary? Kerry stood up AGAINST the invasion because the inspections were working. And said so hundreds of times. You don't like that - tough. He's contributed more positively to this nation's historic record than most of the entire DC Dem party put together.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. Yes, because I don't trust him.

John Kerry has proven that he cannot be trusted, so absolutely I would never vote for him again.

He lied when he voted for the IWR, he has lied and lied and lied since about his reason for voting for the IWR, ignoring the fact that Iraq had already agreed to the return of the inspectors.

He FAILED to vote for the Levin Amendment which would have actually meant something, b/c it would have forced bush to come back to congress before going in, but nah... Kerry didn't need a check/balance and instead voted for a blank check for war.

In 2003 I wrote an article on Smirking Chimp called "Anyone But Kerry" which laid out, IN DETAIL exactly what was going to happen if the democrats were crazy enough to put a liar like Kerry up. You know what, so far I was 100% correct, all the way up to today, because I said the one good thing that would come out of a Kerry nomination is that the democrats would win in 2006, because they would finally find SOME balls and the country would finally rebell against Bush and that it would allow Al Gore to run for President in 2008.

You can take it to the bank, Kerry could never win again in America, nor can ANY of the capitulators.

Here is my next statement, and you can take it all the way to the bank.

If Al Gore doesn't run and the Democrats put up a capitulator, a 3rd party will win the presidency.

Its funny and I feel the same way about this as I did in 2003. I don't think it would be a terrible thing for the democrats to learn another lesson and I don't think it would be a terrible thing for a 3rd party to finally win, so as much as I am trying to rally against the likes of Edwards, Clinton and the other capitulators, I wouldn't be THAT upset, because I could go and work towards making sure NEITHER the democrat or republican gets to the white house.

[blm]

43. Kerry didn't lie - he Wouldn't lie about serious matters of war.

You side against Kerry and you side WITH the corruption and the closed government elite who have worked for decades to stop his voice and his work.

Continue on in the spirit of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, et al. Continue on. Because THAT is who you are serving with when you claim crap like that about Kerry.

You and the rest of the brilliant blogosphere wouldn't know 10% of what you know about the Bush cabal if it wasn't for Kerry's work uncovering IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning and illegal wars in Central America.

The fascism would have taken root by mid90s if it hadn't been for Kerry exposing their operations and rampant corruption of government.

Try using your energy to figure it out, MB. There IS a bigger picture here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1810198&mesg_id=1810198

[Milo_Bloom]

45. Sorry, but he lied.

He lied when he said his IWR vote was about getting inspectors in.

It was a lie because #1) Iraq had ALREADY agreed to the return of inspectors and #2) he voted against the Levin Amendment.

John Kerry's floor speech was one big, giant lie.

All his excuses for his vote since then... nothing but lies.

He made a political decision to vote for war because he wanted to be president and hundreds of thousands of people have paid for his political calculation with their lives.

That is John Kerry's legacy and it is paved with the blood of the innocent.

[blm]

46. IWR was not even a factor in WHETHER we went to war or not. Downing Street Memos

proved that. Kerry was guilty of ONE THING on that IWR vote - he trusted that the people around Bush who would have waited for weapon inspections were more influential than they were - Scowcroft, Powell, Baker and GHWBush. You can't possibly claim that you knew that Cheney was a bigger influence than those others.

And click the link above that I added to the previous post..

[Milo_Bloom]

47. So Kerry is an Idiot or a Liar?

Wow, that is some powerful toad you have been licking.

So his vote is excused because he thought that it didn't mean what it meant and that someone else would stop bush from going to war, despite the fact that he had the absolute authority to do so?

So he ingored the word from the inspector who had come forth weeks before the vote to say there were no WMD in Iraq? He ignored reports from foreign governments? All of that meant nothing. He voted AGAINST the Levin Amenmdent, b/c congressional oversight wasn't necessary... he felt safe giving bush a blank check because he thought Powell and Baker would protect us from Bush?

So, in the end, you think Kerry is an Idiot?

Since I don't think he is the idiot you seem to think he is... We are back to his being a liar.

[blm]

49. No. But I'm not an idiot and I thought Bush2 was more influenced by Bush1, Baker

Scowcroft and Powell and they were all against an actual invasion .

BTW - did anyone submit a better withdrawal plan than Kerry-Feingold did in June 2006?

Keep the pressure on the WRONG target. Stay in their way. Try and ruin their credibility. That's exactly what Nixon, Reagan, Bush did, too - and they used every major paper they could to try and accomplish it. They want him silenced and gone from DC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1810198&mesg_id=1810198

You just can't figure out the big picture yet, can you? Getting rid of Kerry entirely is another part of it.

[Milo_Bloom]

55. I want him gone from DC as well.

And I am not going to be swayed by some tin foil hat theory on how being against Kerry for his lying and betrayal is being for bush.

[blm]

56. Heh - if you think BCCI is tinfoil, or AQ Khan is just a fictional character

and Marc Rich was just another wealthy tax evader, and terror networks were never funded by official covert operations then have your little snit by yourself.

[Milo_Bloom]

58. No, just that there is no big connection...

To wanting Kerry out of the Senate.

Actually, they want Kerry IN the Senate as he continues to provide a rallying point for their cause with his voting for the war before voting against it. He has become an ineffectie joke.

You paint a picture of Kerry that leads to one of 2 conclusions... Kerry is either an absolute Idiot for ceding congressional power, believing in bush and giving him a blank cleck OR Kerry is a liar in all his many excuses for his vote for the war.

I am sorry you don't like the conclusions and want to try and create some big conspiracy theory all aimed at getting this joke of a democrat out of office.

[blm]

59. Your conclusions carry no weight with me. The same names

pop up in Kerry's investigations uncovering IranContra, BCCI, CIA drugrunning, and Iraqgate, 9-11, THIS Iraq war and current sabre-rattling on Iran and Syria and there is no connection...well....have at it. I'm sure BushInc appreciates your denial.

Newsflash: IWR didn't take this country to war. It was a purely political move and that. was. it. It had no other power.

Bush already had the ability and the legal cover to go in from the 1991 UN res.

Nimrods would believe that IWR was the reason we went to war and Rove knew it.

And counted on it. Still does. The spin lets Bush off the hook for his determination to go to war AFTER the weapon inspections.

[Milo_Bloom]

61. The conclusions are the conclusions, your tin foil hat theory is your own.

The same old excuses with the same old lack of facts behind it.

We went to war on the IWR. There was no cover on the 1991 UN resolution because it was... TA DAHHH, A UN resolution that the US had no authority to enforce unilaterally. (changing that letter after the U has some impact on who gets to enforce the resolution).

You gotta love the people who are so delusional they will make up crazy theories to make excuses for a clear politically motivated vote.

So what is your excuse for Kerry voting against the Levin Amendment? Did he think little green men were going to run cover for him?

I wonder why you would rather paint Kerry as a blooming idiot who couldn't wade through simple, clearly worded leglistlation than what he in fact is, a cold, calculating politician who has lied to cover a vote he thought would make him more "presidential".

[blm]

65. Pure bunk.

You would make a poor archer....you have the biggest target in front of you - marked with a huge BFEE - and instead you aim for those whose arrows are also aimed at BFEE.

Clinging to IWR as the boogeyman in your life means Rove knocked on your mind's door and you invited him in to stay.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. The Bunk is the cookie conspiracy theory...

You are trying to sell to deflect from the fact that you want people to forget the IWR vote and the sell out dems who helped take us to war.

[Perry Logan]

17. Which part of "they were lied to" don't you understand?

[Cameron27]

19. Which part of classified NIE docs left

unread, don't you understand?

[Milo_Bloom]

20. An excuse not to do their job?

They are supposed to be a Check/Balance on the executive branch... Not buy everything it sells to them.

There was PLENTY of counter-information available, such as an actual weapon's inspector coming forward 30 days before the vote and stating there were no WMD in Iraq.

There was information from other country's calling the reports into question.

However, rather than DO THEIR JOB, they just acquiesced to the administration and hoped they could get away with the "they lied to us" excuse if it failed.

Pure political calculation and nothing more.

[Adelante]

21. I suggest reading this current thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3519135

[GreenArrow]

23. Considering, that (from both parties) the likely nominee and

eventual winner is going to be someone who voted for it, it would seem that in the mind of the American voter they are not unfit.

Personally, I think all of them who voted for it are unfit, on moral, strategic and political grounds. There was no valid reason for supporting IWR, other than a) flat out ignorance and plain old stupidity, b) personal political benefit, and c) support of the invasion's ultimate aims, namely, control of Iraq's (and the broader region's) resources. All the garbage about the evil Sadamm, and WMD, etc. etc. etc. was so much trumped up horseshit, piled high and reeking to high heaven easily evident to anyone who cared to pay attention. With few exceptions, all who voted for it -- and all current Presidential candidates -- knew that the ever shifting rationales offered in favor of it were nothing but deceptions and exaggerations designed to persuade the public into supporting the invasion. Far from being lied to and misled, they were largely used as willing tools to disseminate the deceptions. To put it another way, the deceptions were not intended to fool Congress, but rather, the American people.

(Edited to add straight up stupidity/ignorance as a reason for supporting IWR)

[Catchawave]

28. How many GOP candidates will have to pass this "sniff test" ?

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

35. All of them.

Or do you think the GOP would nominate a candidate who DIDN'T support the war?

[blm]

29. You would have to BELIEVE that the IWR took this country to war. It didn't.

The Downing Street Memos prove it didn't.

The weapon inspectors reporting back for two months and proving force was not needed was also proving that the IWR was working properly.

Bush LIED when he said he made the determination that force was needed for our national security AFTER the weapon inspections were succeeding to prove the exact OPPOSITE.

So some people really believe that the IWR sent this country to war, and I'm sure Rove knew that some folks would really believe that line of spin.

[FrenchieCat]

37. The IWR gave Bush the credibility he needed to go foward with his plan.....

and provided him with the authorization from congress to declare war if he chose to. To believe that those who voted for the Blank check felt that Bush would choose a route other than war is a crock. They knew that is exactly what he would end up doing.

[blm]

39. Thinking Powell, Scowcroft and GHWBush had more influence on a final decision than

Cheney that early in the administration isn't a crock.

And Bush was still supposed to go back to the UN after the weapon inspections report. People FORGET that UN voted for this, too, but Bush ended up skirting them completely because the weapon inspections were proving force was not needed and the vote looked like it would come out against force.

The IWR was SPUN into being the cover for war, but that doesn't mean intelligent, comprehensive people have to buy into that spin.

Bush was going into war WITHOUT that resolution, too. Then the 'cover' would be the 1991 UN resolution. Or...the WMDs would have been planted - somehow - some way.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Which is what the Levin Amendment would have put "control" over.....

what to do after the outcome of the U.N. Vote.

[blm]

42. Still doesn't change anything. Bush was going in - Downing Street Memos showed that.

And it still wasn't a known factor at that time that Cheney influenced Bush more than Powell, Scowcroft, Baker and GHWBush. Anyone who claims it was a known factor then is not being honest.

[jobendorfer]

48. skepticism is job #1 for congress-critters

If you're a Representative or a Senator, one of your duties is to act as a check and balance
against the Executive Branch. When the President argues for war, your job is to find (or oversee
the finding) of independent sources of information, perform a critical analysis of the President's
evidence and arguments, then vote up or down based on what you find ... NOT what you are told
by the President, the Vice-President, the CIA, the Pentagon, etc, etc, etc.

Reps & Senators who don't believe that, or don't get that, IMHO, are not qualified to be
President. They're not even qualified to be congress-critters. They should go back to
hawking real estate, or ambulance chasing, or whatever they did before they got into the
political racket.

J.

[MadHound]

50. This is how I look at it

If you voted for the IWR because you were fooled or duped or such like, then quite frankly, being fooled by Bushco means that you are too stupid to be president.

If you voted for the IWR for political reasons, then you enabled the deaths of tens of thousands of people all for politics and don't have the proper moral grounding to be president.

If you voted for the IWR because you actually wanted to, then you put your wishes ahead of those of your constituents, and thus would make a poor president.

The IWR is a politically defining vote, and there is absolutely no possible case to be made for electing somebody who voted for it. I don't care about later retractions or apologies. You did a heinous act once, for whatever reason, you will do it again. I suppose it comes down to the fact that you can't be trusted once you voted for the IWR. Harsh, maybe, but there it is.

[Lord Helmet]

51. that bad decision will not be forgotten

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. I Used To Feel That Way But I Softened My Position

eom

[Adelante]

67. I've gone the other way

I used to be a lot more understanding before the pre-war intelligence investigations. I was only queasy in 2004, but once November passed and I could have a clearer head on it, I was thinking about it more and more. By the summer of 2005, I just couldn't justify it another minute. I'm still willing to assign some credits and losses for actions post-IWR vote, mitigating factors, but the thought of running an IWR YES voter in the GE turns my stomach. I'm practical enough not to withhold my vote because of it, but I would be a lot more comfortable and supportive if the nominee isn't bearing this cross. And I do want them on the cross. I want them held accountable for this war, which I know very well is Bush's war, but he couldn't have gotten away with it if so many Dems in Congress hadn't fallen down on the IWR, at the kindest interpretation, or carried his war banner for him.

[illinoisprogressive]

53. The person who voted was either lazy or lacked judgment or both.

[MUSTANG_2004]

70. Not lazy, cowardly n/t

[Adelante]

68. They are welcome to redeem themselves all they want

They do not deserve the presidency as reward for their redemption.

[MUSTANG_2004]

69. Unfit, for two different reasons

I think most Democrats who voted yes did so out of political expediency. They thought it was a bad idea but a No vote would cost them politically. These are political cowards, unfit to be President.

The ones who voted Yes because they believed it was the right thing to do have terrible foreign policy judgment and don't get the basic fact that America does not attack a country that isn't attacking us.

[uppityperson]

71. A Presidential candidate who would STILL vote for the IWR is unfit for the Presidency.

Fool me once, sort of thing. If they still would vote for it, they are unfit. If they have SHOWN they are capable of learning, they may be fit.