CLINTON, KERRY, and EDWARDS voted responsibly and like statesmen on the IWR.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Obama probably would have voted for it too if he was in the Senate.

I don't blame Democrats for BUSH fuckups.

[jaysunb]

1. It was not Statesmanship it was

cowardice. :evilfrown:

[Abacus]

8. Yep

Positioning, stupidity, or cowardice - none of them desirable in a candidate.

[jasmine621]

42. When I say, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have done it"

I am saying I made a mistake. What do you folks want? I think she really believes that she made the correct decision at the time, being the Senator from NY. And you folks just won't give her credit when she says, as did others who voted for the resolution, she made it known in the Senate that she was not voting for a rush to war and had received assurances that it was not a rush to war. We have used that threat in the past. A nation needs to operate from a position of strength as well as diplomacy.

[jaysunb]

51. If me and most of the world knew, she should have ,

given..er...ahem...her, experience.:evilfrown:

[jasmine621]

55. We didn't "know" anything. We didn't want the war.

We were not being briefed and bombarded with information about WMDs and Saddam. Those who voted "no" made a principled vote. I believe those who voted "yes" did the same. Those who were not there to vote should not be so judgemental, especially those with a history for voting present on or missing so many votes. You can speak out against something at anytime, but putting your vote where your mouth is is something very different.

[jaysunb]

59. I'm sorry, the facts were on the table for all to see,

and had there been more compelling facts, you can be sure Bushco would have shown them to the whole world a la Collin Powell's UN farce.

Clinton didn't believe Bush would bungle the war, when in reality,history (especially in that region) is very clear on what happens when they are invaded. That's " Bad Judgement. "

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. What facts? "Bungle the war?" What war? She authorized an immoral invasion

I suppose you would still support it if any weapons (chemical warheads that are easy to obtain from other sources and utterly useless against the US) had been found while rooting for oil.

[jaysunb]

64. have it your way...

but it's bad to be an apologist for poor judgement on both your parts.

If you've ever been to war ( I have. Vietnam) or ever seen the results of war, (they all had) you should be able to use better judgement.

Finally, common sense should prevail when asking, " what would Saddam have to gain by attacking the USA?" Where could he possibly be getting these weapons ? ( gulp) Why don't the "facts" fit the aurgument...Saddam is a secularist,Usama is a fanatic."

Me and the majority of the reality based world used common sense when answering these questions. Anybody that didn't is guilty of complicity or very bad judgement, neither of which qualifys them to lead this country.

[Leopolds Ghost]

78. Oh, OK, I thought you were defending her vote, sorry

[jaysunb]

114. no way

quite the opposite.....

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

86. Amen. Ted Kennedy knew not to vote for it n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

87. her judgement was incredibly poor, then

if she was fooled by Bush, when others weren't, then she has bad judgment.

She certainly failed in her oversight duties.

[Skwmom]

54. It was voting to send people off to die to further your career.

There is no courage in that.

[jaysunb]

56. please reread my post.

n/t

[Skwmom]

60. I was agreeing.

Sorry, I should have said "I agree there is no courage in that."

[mth44sc]

2. At least one of those folks

admitted it was a major mistake...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. They all said it was a mistake in their own way but only because it was abused

[mth44sc]

18. but most all of us knew

it would be abused...

Didn't you?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

47. If I got an assurance from a cabinet member I probably would have believed it at the time

[Thrill]

3. Don't blame him for their bad judgement

You didn't see Teddy Kennedy voting for that shit. They didn't have to

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. voting for leverage isn't bad judgment by itself

[earthlover]

40. There were amendments to the IWR that would have bought time

They all were voted down by hillary. The Levin Amendment would have sent the matter back to the UN, and would have required a second vote for war authorization. Again, Hillary voted NO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3140690

The title of the Iraq War Resolution is self explanatory.

Nowhere is there any limits on Bush's ability to wage war on his whim

[SOS]

62. There was no leverage. There were no conditions whatsoever.

It was a blank check, exactly as Byrd said at the time.

Let's look at the actual law:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

There were NO CONDITIONS. The Congress merely "supported the efforts" to enforce UNSC resolutions. It's empty, meaningless rhetoric.

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

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as HE DETERMINES to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Bush is given 100% sole authority to determine whether his non-existent "efforts" had met with success.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate HIS DETERMINATION that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

Again, Bush is asked only to inform Congress of his determination prior to attacking Iraq. The 48 hour notification was the only legally binding condition in the law and Bush complied.
Kennedy and Byrd were right. It was a blank check.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. So do you think Ted Kennedy and the entire liberal caucus made a mistake?

After all, we'd never know. We'd still be fighting a low-grade siege air war of Baghdad wondering if Saddam has nukes or not, right? One of them has to be wrong, they can't both have been right to vote the way they did. This is not casuistry time.

[Whisp]

9. they did have to.

but the question is why. what reason?

millions around the world in the streets knew why.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. It's part of the "progressive" Mantra. IWR & Capitalism - the reason

for their struggle.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. So you're opposed to the progressive caucus because you're a hawk and pro business?

Got it.

[sandnsea]

7. What about those who voted no? Not statesmen?

Edwards and Kerry have admitted the vote was wrong, challenged the war lies, and worked to end it almost since it began.

Clinton people were part of the intelligence errors, never vigorously opposed the invasion, only criticized the execution of the war, said we had to "stay the course", forgave Bush for his lies, and only came around to supporting some kind of withdrawal when it was politically necessary. They are such lying scum.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. Are you saying Edwards and Kerry voted for it out of stupidity?

[sandnsea]

28. They aren't running for President anymore

Miss Hillshill is and she's the one who was the architect of that disastrous IWR and the war itself. It is just bullshit that she is trying to pretend she didn't make a calculated decision to support the war because she thought it would go smoothly.

[earthside]

10. All those good Democratic Senators ...

... who had the foresight to vote NO were irresponsible and unstatesman-like?

Please, there must be a limit to rationalizations just for the sake of justifying your candidate's mistake.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

13. No, but as Clinton said she got assurance that it was leverage. It was possible they didn't

I assume Kerry and Edwards got the same assurance

[earthside]

27. Mistake or Naive?

We're right back to that dilemma then. Either it was a mistake, as Edwards has admitted, or Bush fooled her.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

34. she said a mistake in light of what he did, not a mistake given what was going on AT THAT TIME

[godai]

41. "A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq".

Hillary voted yes, to authorize the use of US forces in Iraq. It's quite clear.

[godai]

36. It seems that bush fooled her.

23 Senators voted no, based on the same evidence.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. It seems that Bush fooled *only* her. The other Senators admitted they were either pressured

Or were trying to buy some time to force Bush to negotiate with Saddam,
as Kerry rationalized (he said when he voted for the IWR that he opposed
actual war with Iraq under almost any circumstance.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

82. So why did the Progressive caucus refuse to trust their president? Mistake?

[scheming daemons]

12. Edwards and Kerry admitted they made a mistake..... Clinton still won't......

stubborn

[scheming daemons]

17. And that's why Edwards, Kerry, and Clinton won't be president....

...America won't forget.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

19. She has admitted it and also said it's ONLY a mistake because Bush abused the resolution

[sandnsea]

33. Right. But it was a mistake because Bush Lied About WMD

That's what she can't get through her head. There was no reason to invade and the reason she can't deny it is because it was her own advisers who were also pushing the WMD lines.

[earthlover]

44. It was the iraq WAR resolution...it wasn't an invitation for a tennis match....

[NYCGirl]

14. It's called "political expediency" NT

[Blue-Jay]

15. I remember the McDonald's "Shamrock Shake".

Those were awesome!

[eridani]

16. It was cowardice, period

Agreed, Obama probably would have been a coward too, but that doesn't make it any better.

[sjdnb]

20. Bush overrode the requirements and intent of the bill

but, obviously, some haven't bothered to read/research it enough to know that.

And, that was one thing that ticked me off during the Kerry campaign - he never fought back with the fact that it was Bush, who criminally ignored the intent and requirements of the bill - just as he has done repeatedly, throughout his administration, via signing statements or just by ignoring/superceding the law.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. I agree, thought it sucked that they apologized.

[calmblueocean]

21. You keep pushing this crap. You can start 1000 threads, it still doesn't justify her vote.

Edwards didn't even AGREE with you! He said he made a mistake!

He didn't try to weasel out of his responsibility there. He knew he'd done wrong, he admitted it, and moved on. You can't change until you accept what you did wrong in the first place, dammit.

[sjdnb]

35. Edwards SHOULD have said Bush made the mistake

because anyone familiar with the bill would agree. Bush was the criminal who ignored the intent and requirements of the bill as originally agreed upon -- not Edwards, Kerry, or Clinton.

[cali]

22. The worst fucking disgusting Orwellinan pile of shit of all.

BLANK CHECK. GO FUCKING EDUCATE YOURSELF, MUCKY. IT WAS A TONKIN GULF SHAM BLANK CHECK TO MURDER AND DESTROY. AND THAT'S WHAT THE REAL STATESMEN KNEW AND SAID AND IT'S WHY THEY VOTED AGAINST IT.

MURDEROUSLY STUPID TO CLAIM THAT VOTING TO BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF PEOPLE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

[calteacherguy]

24. No, Kennedy was the statesman...him and 20-something others. nt

[Proud2BAmurkin]

29. I don't credit Kennedy because he was in a liberal state that even if he thought

the IWR was the right thing he could afford to pander to the anti war left with that vote. I don't give any of them automatic credit for courage even the ones who voted against

[pampango]

84. And conversely all those Democratic senators who voted for it were from red or purple

states or had presidential ambitions that meant they had to preemptively deal with the "weak on defense" issue, but voting for the IWR. That's why I think it likely that Obama would have voted for it, since all of our senators who have since run for president did vote for it. (We'll never know for sure whether Obama would have voted "yes" or not.)

The Democratic senators who voted against it, like Kennedy, Wellstone, Boxer, and Feingold, were liberal senators either from Blue states or not worried about reelection for one reason or another. I suppose you could argue that Kerry and Clinton should have fallen into this group, but their presidential ambitions must have trumped this, while Edwards was not from a Blue state.

I've never heard anyone say that Kennedy voted against the IWR because he was pandering to his liberal base in MA. (I've heard that he was free to vote his conscience because MA is such a blue state.) I guess you could say the same about Wellstone, Boxer, Feingold and the other "no" voters, but that presents our senators in a very unstatesman-like light. In this view, the "no" voters were pandering to their anti-war base, Kerry, Clinton, and Edwards were protecting their presidential prospects and the other "yes" voters were afraid of their red/purple state voters. It's all politics, I guess.

[Occam Bandage]

25. This is, frankly, disgusting. The IWR was a piece of shit, we knew it at the time, and it still is.

[ProSense]

26. Don't bring Kerry into your game. Hillary didn't have the courage to vote for Kerry-Feingold

Don't tell me Barack didn't either because Hillary is the one pretending that she learned a lesson. Yet she refuses to admit a mistake.

That's why Kerry endorsed Obama.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

31. Kerry was weak to apologize nt

[ProSense]

37. Idiocy on display: check your OP. It's also telling that Kennedy endorsed Obama n/t

[politicasista]

57. I hear crickets n/t

[karynnj]

93. He didn't appologige - he said that he profoundly regrets it and that it was

the wrong vote because of how it could be and was used.

It is not weakness to admit that you were wrong. Especially when you are speaking of something of this level of importance. Kerry spent his entire life for decades against that type of foreign policy - in addition to challenging Nixon, he challenged Reagan on the covert Central American wars, while the Clintons were for legally funding the Contras. Kerry also had spoken against the invasion when it was imminent - unlike HRC - which is consistent with what he said he would do if Bush broke his promises.

He also from 2004 through the present worked to find a way to end the war. Even in 2004, he spoke of a diplomatic summit, bringing in the international community and no permanent bases. In 2005, he more than anyone, raised the consciousness of people, that we could not do the policing and search and destroy and we needed to make it clear we had no interest in occupation. In 2006, he led with Feingold on Kerry/Feingold. In 2006, the Clintons fought them trying to push for a change in policy, because it could hurt politically. In 2006, Kerry was saying that it would be immoral to stay quiet when the policy was wrong.

Even in 2004, Kerry gave a great answer on when war was justified - speaking of "global test", which was a generalized non-secular version of "just war". (He defined the two in nearly the same way - global test in 2004; just war in 2006 in a speech at Pepperdine College - where he made clear that the Iraq War was not in his mind a just war and the reasons were that it was not a war of last resort and that there was no planning for the peace - among other things.) In 2004, he likely needed the distancing he had between voting for the IWR and being for the war. While he likely knows that there was nothing that he could have done to stop the war, he clearly in many instances has spoken very soberly of taking his share of responsibility.

Where you see weakness, I see strength. I see a very moral man, accepting a share of responsibility and working as hard and well as he can on many fronts to do what he can to fix the problems.

[DB1]

30. So who's payroll are you on? You are getting tiresome. N/T

[elixir]

32. Thank you, Proud2BAmurkin.

[blm]

38. Then Bush made the DECISION to invade when weapon inspections were proving

that force was not necessary.

Who of those three fulfilled their promise to oppose any DECISION to invade if no just cause is shown by the weapon inspectors?


And who of the three did not?

[Ravy]

39. I agree. Allowing the containment sanctions to go on forever

when they were having a such a devistating effect on the Iraqi people was inhumane.

Weapon inspectors needed to go back in and discover/destroy WMD if there were any, and most thought there were.

The threat of US troops invading if Saddam didn't comply was necessary for his compliance.

He complied, yet Bush still invaded.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

45. well said nt

[never_get_over_it]

43. That is exactly what is fucking wrong with this country

nobody takes responsibility for their mistakes

They DID NOT vote RESPONSIBLY they voted POLITICALLY and look at the death and destruction that has resulted...and what have any of them done to try to stop it since they took back control of the Congress NEXT to nothing - why because of POLITICS and how many have died since Nancy became speaker and Harry became majority leader - 940 of us as of today - and God only knows how many others..

You know I watched my brother bury his only child - not because of Iraq but because of a stupid car accident - I KNOW this unspeakable tragedy and just think of ALL THOSE FAMILIES Iraqis, Americans, coalition of the willing - all of them who have suffered this unbearable sorrow because of these spineless fucking pukes....

STOP IT THEY WERE WRONG....

[BootinUp]

73. This is exactly what is wrong with this country

people blame the wrong politicians all the time. Essentially it becomes "all politicians suck! Why should I bother to vote."

The problem with everyones analysis of the IWR vote is that they ASSume we would not have invaded if that resolution went down to defeat. I have news for you, time would not have ceased at that moment. The elections were 2 weeks or so away, and Bush and the Republicans were licking their chops at the prospect of a donkey slaughter. After which the war resolution would have been picked up again in January.

We were going to Iraq all right, unless the American people demanded otherwise in large enough numbers. The only realistic hope to avoid the war in hindsight was the UN inspections that the IWR forced to happen and the hope that the media would report on the UN inpsection findings in a way to marginalize the case for war. But the Repukes were succesful in scaring the shit out of Americans and they had enough cover for invasion, they had enough cover to boot out the inspectors while they were inspecting so they could drop bombs!

Why does anyone think the Dems could have stopped this?

C'est impossible!

[never_get_over_it]

99. Actually I agree with you that

the war monger in chief would have done it anyway

BUT - that does not excuse the Dems who voted yes because of political calculations - they enabled him and made it easier for him....and why the hell haven't they done something to stop it since they have control of the Congress and the purse strings for the past year

I guess you're the kind of person who would see someone in trouble and shrug and walk away saying well I can't do anything about it - c'est impossible

just because something is c'est impossible doesn't mean you don't do the right thing which in this case is VOTE NO....

situational ethics now that sucks

[BootinUp]

100. You say "political calculations" as if

its a waste of time to calculate them. I mean I would like my Senators to calculate and calculate correctly.

If you agree that we would probably have invaded regardless of the outcome of the Oct '02 vote, then they calculated correctly that it was better to get the UN inspectors in there with no resistance from Iraq. They could not forsee that Bush would kick the inspectors out in March, that was a calculated risk.

[never_get_over_it]

104. OH PLEASE

Let me clarify for you - in case you are really so clueless as to WHAT their political calculations were: Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and I believe Obama if he had been there all had their eye on the White House - that was their political calculations - THEY made it easier for Bush

REAL people with REAL lives that did nothing to us - ARE DEAD get that DEAD DEAD DEAD lots and lots and lots of them because of these pathetic spineless calculating pukes - OH MY GOD

Stop defending the indefensible....

[BootinUp]

106. Lets please pursue that line of reasoning

They wanted to get in the WH... OK

Why would that vote help them in this regard?

[never_get_over_it]

108. You're kidding right?

oh say maybe the repunks would beat the crap out of them and accuse them of being weak on terror and security.....

[BootinUp]

109. Not at all.

a President needs to be trusted with National Security. If our candidates cannot be trusted by a majority because they refused to force the inspections in 2002 then lets all prepare ourselves for 4 or 8 years of McCain or possibly Romney. And lets yield the Senate back to them too. Why should America force inpsections on a State like Iraq was. Maybe you think we had no right, no moral case for that. I do not agree based on Iraqs history. The UN Sec Council does not either.

Was the war itself moral? Of course not. So was it the wrong vote?

If the Senators believed we could have stopped the invasion with that one vote AND if they knew Bush would not follow through with the inspections after the authorization then yes it was wrong.

But that would make them monsters in my book. Trading a WH run for an unwinnable war. Is that why you believe they voted yes? Are YOU serious?

Personally I thought Bush would launch airstrikes only if necessary to force Iraq to allow a complete disarmament by the UN. I never thought until it commenced that he planned to occupy the whole country, thought that was just a threat he would not act on. It was and remains an insane plan, and I assumed he was not insane. It is only in hindsight that I know different know.

What say you we give it rest. I have now been arguing the IWR this morning for a few hours and have had my say on it for at least another month or two.

[never_get_over_it]

110. I'd love to give it a rest

You are determined to defend the indefensible - and I am determined not to....


"Trading a WH run for an unwinnable war. Is that why you believe they voted yes? Are YOU serious?"

That is EXACTLY what I think although I'm not sure they thought it was unwinnable. Jonn Kerry who served in the military who served in Viet Nam who came back and led the Viet Nam vets against the war - HAD NO FUCKING BUSINESS VOTING for IWR - but he did because he was planning to run for President and his advisers advised him to vote this way - if you can't see that you are naive.

If what you say is true then WHY oh WHY did the 23 who voted against it do so....seems like they all would have voted YES

Do you know that Bob Graham as much as said he voted NO because he knew George Bush is a FUCKING LIAR....now of course he was way more diplomatic than that.

Voting no might not have stopped that criminal war mongering freak in the White House - BUT it would have made it WAY harder for him.....

You go on living your delusion that they did the RIGHT thing - and I'll keep believing that over a million REAL PEOPLE are DEAD because of political calculations meant to further careers....

[BootinUp]

111. well we are communicating at least heh

So here is a last question from me.

If they did it for the reason you state, why the UN inspections, forcing dubya back to the UN at all? All that seemed quite unneccessary. Lets just get our war on man! heh.

[never_get_over_it]

115. So people like Hillary could say she wasn't voting for war

if she needed to. And that answer is really about half tongue in cheek

Seriously my whole point is Bush could not be trusted - many if not all of them KNEW there were no WMDs - and at a minimum they knew Iraq was NOT A THREAT TO US imminent or otherwise - I am saying that they should have stood up and told him NO Period - "they" thought that would put them at a political disadvantage for the upcoming Congressional races - or future political races ie the White House - they took the easy way out and over a million Iraqis have paid with their lives

Do you know my lame Senator has actually said that he was told that if they didn't give the war monger in chief this authority that drones would drop bombs over the US. HELLO Iraq is 6,000 miles from the east coast of the USA - I did a brief google research and the furthest I could find any drone being able to fly was 600 friggin miles....now I know nothing about this shit truthfully but I knew it sounded pretty freaking fishy that a drone from Iraq was going to drop something on NYC - you know who my Senator is who said he believed a drone would drop something on the US - Bill FREAKING Nelson a former freaking astronaut. Give me a break - he had to have known that was BS and he has to think his constituents are RETARDED to believe that he believe a drone from Iraq was going to drop something on the US....well actually a lot of his constituents are pretty damn STUPID unfortunately - but this one isn't

Its hard to stand up - they took the easy way out and shame on all of them for it.....

[iamjoy]

46. No, Obama Wouldn't Have

After all, Obama did speak out against the war at the time.

BUT, I don't necessarily believe that was political courage. I mean, here he is a Democrat in a Democratic district of a blue state. Even if most of the country approved of Bush (at the time) and would have supported the war, that's a national *average* - higher in some places, lower in others (like Democratic districts of Democratic states). No great courage to be anti-war there.

Furthermore, Obama had little accountability if he was wrong. The Democrats in Illinois still would have supported him, even if we'd found WMD, even if everything had gone like Dubya said it would in post-Saddam Iraq.

But those US Senators, they had accountability. If they hadn't given that authorization, we went to war and the WMD were found, they had failed to defend America. If we hadn't gone to war and Hussein did something, they had failed to defend America. It was cowardice, perhaps, but that doesn't mean supporting the IWR was strictly political. They bought into the hype and fear.

If anything, the arguement could be made that Edwards and Kerry would have shown LESS political courage voting against the resolution. Think about it. By 2002, both had their eye running for President in 2004. If things in Iraq were going well in 2004, it would be hard to run against Dubya for how he's screwed it up so badly. If things were going so poorly, well, they voted for it too. Voting against it would have seen like a far more sure bet for getting the nomination.

so, I don't think Obama would have voted for the war if he had the chance - but that doesn't make him any more noble than Clinton, Edwards or Kerry. He just happened to be right on this issue.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

48. He also spoke against FUNDING but later FUNDED.

[iamjoy]

50. What's Wrong With Funding

of course, he shouldn't have spoken against it - but why not take the attitude that while we're there we need to make sure our troops have what they need to protect themselves?

Look, the Democrats and the President playing chicken with the lives of our soldiers is stupid. Commander Cuckoo Bananas would leave the troops over there with nothing - he would let them die to have his way and then skillfully blame it on the Democrats for not providing the money needed (and the media would be complicit).

[Proud2BAmurkin]

52. Nothing I agreed with it the first two times but Obama campaigned equating funding = war support

[iamjoy]

65. Well, Fair Enough

And another reason why I give Senator Obama no points for showing political courage on Iraq.

Hey, I was an Edwards supporter, but it really annoyed me that he "attacked" Clinton and Obama over funding the war. I thought it was easy for him to be an anti-war candidate when he no longer had the responsibility of making decisions that affected human lives.

[Vinca]

69. Re the funding.

Once the troops are there, Obama reasoned you couldn't leave them high and dry. I disagreed with his votes for funding, but I understand them. Could you vote against money that might provide body armor and safer vehicles? It's a tough call, to be sure, but one thing is certain: he'll get them out of there. Hillary's in a much worse position on this with her ridicuous statement that she voted for it but didn't expect Shrub to go to war. Wasn't it the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution?" Other people were wise enough to vote "no" and she certainly could have, too.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. He shouldn't have spoken against war with Iraq?

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. HERE WE HAVE DEMOCRATS saying that if WMD had been found, WE WAR OPPONENTS FAILED TO DEFEND AMERICA

I opposed war with Iraq knowing that Iraq still probably had chemical
weapons stockpiles lying around (as does Iran, provably in fact) and you
wanted to "finish the job" that Bush and Clinton started in the 1990s.

[girl gone mad]

49. A "statesman" would have stood up to Bush,

and stood for their constituents, who were overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion.

[Renew Deal]

53. This has got to be the first time I have seen anything like this on DU in at least 4 years

Wow

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. That's what you get now that the DLC have circled the wagons and forced the Gore/Edwards/Kerry/Dean

political minority of the party into the cold.

They have lost and Dean will be replaced by an establishment-friendly
candidate once either of the two wins.

[karynnj]

95. Kerry, Kennedy, and Leahy on one side may indicate

that they with the red state Dems are trying to create a new power structure.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

102. The OP is FULL of such gems!

I certainly hope they are getting paid by the post...

[Stardust]

58. 23 senators somehow mysteriously knew the IWR was unacceptable. Those who

voted for it were either naive or too lazy to do the research. Just a few minutes in DU would have enlightened them all. And sometimes, goddammit, if you fuck up, you pay the price. They can't un-ring the bell and those victims of this atrocity will never live again.

[JackRiddler]

61. So 23 senators including the late Wellstone voted irresponsibly and not like statesmen? nt

[Beregond2]

63. Iraq

Give me a break. Anyone with the intelligence of a gnat could see that Bush and Friends were creating a phony rationale for war. Those who voted for the resolution were just afraid to fly in the face of public opinion, which had been manipulated through fear and misdirection into believing Saddam had ties to Al Queda and WMD. They put their political futures ahead of the good of the country, period.

[pampango]

70. Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards all voted for the IWR and all have since run for president.

I wonder if Wellstone (we'll never know now) or any of the others who voted against the IWR have since run for president. It may be the CYA against charges of being weak on defense in a future presidential campaign motivated votes for the IWR more than more than principled beliefs about the facts on the ground.

[JVS]

66. No, they fucked up.

[JTFrog]

67. CLINTON SMEARS OBAMA ON IRAQ - AGAIN

Looks like you are trying to carry out the campaign mission of the day. Your ASSumption is pure bullshit and your belief that a yes vote for IWR was the correct vote reveals all.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6850_clinton_smears.html

Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq — Again

Senator Hillary Clinton appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday, for the entire show, and asserted once again that Senator Barack Obama's rhetoric does not match the reality of his record. Referring to voters, she remarked, "I want them to have accurate information about our respective records." Yet moments later, Clinton, ostensibly providing voters with information about Obama's record, falsely characterized what Obama had once said about Saddam Hussein--to make it seem that prior to the war Obama was weak on Saddam.

During the show, Tim Russert brought up Clinton's vote in October 2002 for the legislation authorizing George W. Bush to take military action against Iraq, and he quoted a speech Obama gave at that time:

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors....I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Russert then asked Clinton, "Who had the better judgment at that time?" Meaning you or him.


...

*edit link

[polpilot]

68. Responsibly? "I vote to attack a country 10K miles away

from the U.S. that has been bombed LEVEL for 10 years, that has no clean water, electricity, any infrastructure, that has NOT ONE FIGHTER PLANE, NOT ONE NAVAL VESSEL, because......it'll get me a vote?? REAL responsible. Sounds like maybe you'd enjoy frying up those squirrels with The Huck!

[polichick]

71. self-delete

[BootinUp]

72. 100% correct

The situation with Iraq and Sadaam called for an ultimatum to once and for all force unobstructed inspections. Had the Dems not joined in a bipartisan and serious threat, Sadaam would have continued to thumb his nose at the UN and our demands for inspections with no conditions.

The various proposals to limit Bush's authority were not serious threats in the final analysis. Either the country says we are prepared to do this if you don't yield or the country says:

Well we are sorta ready to kick your ass, but not really ready so, but we will kick your ass someday you big meany!

Also the Dems would have been slaughtered in the November elections and Bush would have used that to push the issue again immediately after the elections. Either way we were screwn.

[polpilot]

74. There was ALWAYS an intelligent alternative...

Just say no!! To discuss going to war with Iraq was nothing short of insane. Not one informed human on earth thought that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. (INFORMED). The amazing case was essentially 'Saddam's bad, he's mean to his people so let's (1) bankrupt our country (2) lose all our accumulated moral authority in the world (Not much) and (3) use our military consistent with the policy of a madman. Great ideas yield great results!

[BootinUp]

75. "To discuss going to war with Iraq was nothing short of insane"

You obviously couldn't give a lick whether the Dems are in the majority or even a reltively close minority in Congress. Whatever YOU thought of the threat of no inspections, there were a lot more people who disagreed with you and would glady put in politicians that shared their view that it was time to discuss all the alternatives and to use a threat to force Iraq to comply.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Of course you know Wes was vehemently opposed to the war and one of the few to back up Scott Ritter

Back when people here in democratic party and elsewhere were calling Ritter a traitor and possible Saddam agent.

Wonder why Wes is supporting Hillary? Oh, I forgot, they're family friends and Wes has been loyal to the Clinton family for decades and is assured a position if Clinton wins. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton hasn't offered Wes the Vice Presidency precisely BECAUSE he is more anti-war than her.

[BootinUp]

98. As you probably can tell

I am an ardent Clark supporter, but I was never a one issue IWR person, and I will remind you Wes's own feelings on it from the 2004 primary:

The IWR should not be a litmus test. - Wes Clark.


Some people try to understand the real reasons for that vote, others have closed their mind to that. Hillary has been more consistent than Obama for instance, more consistent the Edwards, she has stated her reasons plainly for years.


Clark has more than proved himself as a progressive over the last 4 years, you can question his motives if you like, doesn't carry much weight with me of course.

[lojasmo]

76. That wasn't responsible.

They failed to read the report. It was political triangulation at it's worst.

[stillcool]

80. Responsible for war.

[bcoylepa]

83. shameful

they knew better - we knew better
they stopped leading on this and followed Bush and all like sheep - it is a shameful part of history and it should not be re-written

[Bad Thoughts]

88. Kerry stood out

He at least told the public that we needed "regime change at home." He tried to divert the intention of the IRW toward the UN process, no matter how flawed his logic was voting for it.

[Bake]

92. Obama had the luxury of not being in the Senate at the time.

Had he been in the Senate, I suppose he could've voted "present."

Bake

[mmonk]

94. A political expediency vote. They thought it would be popular.

That's reality. I knew bush was lying out his ass and there was no connection to the terrorist attacks here and Iraq. If I knew it, they knew. It's a character issue.

[LordJFT]

96. It's not just a Bush fuck-up, they should have read the freakin, NIE

[wheresthemind]

101. How did Paul Wellstone vote then?

You want to tell me that? Irresponsibly and stupidly?

Go watch his speech on the Senate floor. He and Obama both accurately predicted what would happen.

Clinton, Kerry, and Edwards voted for what was perceived to be the politically safe choice.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

103. I need to pull out the waders for this...

The bullshit level is getting dangerously high here. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. You supported the war in Iraq too, didn't you?

It's the only thing that makes sense.

[Political Heretic]

107. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

So those who did not vote for the IWR were not Statesmen then?

How did they apparently have enough information to know that they should not vote for the IWR?

I was an Edwards supporter, but I NEVER - NOT ONE TIME - made the kind of bullshit spin that you are trying to make here. Edwards was WRONG. Clinton was WRONG. Kerry was WRONG. PERIOD.

[dionysus]

112. you continually astound me with your ability to look more and more like a fool.

voting for the IWR was a good idea to you? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands who died over this just so a politian could look "tough". idiot.

[cd3dem]

113. Obama would have voted "present" like the 130 other times he couldn't decide...

[Tatiana]

116. KICK