If you are basing your vote on the 2002 IRW resolution and funding of it thereafter

[radfringe]

these are the only senators who voted against the inital 2002 IRW
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

**Obama wasn't a senator at the time of IRW vote, he says he would have voted against it, yet from the listings below, he has consistently voted along side Clinton in FUNDING the was/occupation.


in regards to FUNDING the Iraq war and Occupation: (non-Iraq appropriation items deleted fom the listing on the linked page for the purpose of this post - see link by each name for more info on voting records) The Y or N at the end of each item indicated a YES or NO vote

Clinton http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Appropriations

Date Bill Title Vote
03/29/2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 Y
06/22/2006 Defense Department FY 2007 Authorization bill Y
06/15/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006 Y
05/04/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006 Y
12/21/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill N
12/21/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill Y
11/15/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill Y
11/10/2005 Foreign Operations FY2006 Appropriations Bill Y
10/07/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill Y
05/10/2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 Y
04/21/2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 Y
04/18/2005 Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment Y
07/22/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
06/24/2004 Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill Y
04/03/2003 Appropriations for Operations in Iraq Y
10/16/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
08/01/2002 Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill Y
07/24/2002 Supplemental Appropriations, FY2002 bill Y
06/07/2002 Supplemental Appropriations, FY2002 bill Y

Obamahttp://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Date Bill Title Vote
03/29/2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 Y
06/22/2006 Defense Department FY 2007 Authorization bill Y
06/15/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006 Y
05/04/2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006 Y
12/21/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill N
12/21/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill Y
11/15/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill Y
11/10/2005 Foreign Operations FY2006 Appropriations Bill Y
10/07/2005 Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill Y
07/20/2005 Foreign Operations FY2006 Appropriations Bill Y
0/10/2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 Y
04/21/2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005 Y


this is not an endorsement or flaming of either candidate, merely passing along information.. after all

[sandnsea]

1. Yeah, he's stuck with her war

We get it.

[radfringe]

5. Clinton must have immense power in the senate to claim sole ownership

of the Iraq war...

her ONE VOTE, made all of the difference between bombin and not bombing, and these senator's votes in favor of it didn't matter one bit.. bush has been absolved from ordering the the Iraq invasion - it's all CLINTON's fault!!!

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA

[sandnsea]

6. The Clintons Lead the Party

Edwards said he relied on those in the Clinton Administration when voting for the IWR.

It's clear that Hillary has worked diligently to build a tough on defense strategy for years in order to run for President.

YES, I blame her for the Democratic Party's support of the war and the difficulty in getting a coaliton to oppose it.

[radfringe]

8. Edwards said he relied on those in the Clinton Administration when voting for the IWR.

Edwards couldn't think for himself? fact check for himself?

blaming everything on the Clintons is what the bushies and repubs do

if the Iraq war is Clinton and Dems fault - are you going to vote repub? according to your position - the repubs and bush are absolutely blameless, they were just following the Clintons

[sandnsea]

9. We are choosing our Dem Nominee

Why in the world would we choose someone who was so incredibly wrong and wrong because she was more concerned with creating a tough image than getting the policy right.

[radfringe]

12. it's your vote

if you think she's wrong - then don't vote for her

I'm just pointing out that if you vote solely on this issue , then obama's vote to continue to fund the war/occupation makes him an accessory after the fact

does obama's voting FOR the continuation of funding also make him incredibly wrong and wrong because he's more concerned with creating a "patriotic image" more than getting the policy right?

just playing devil's advocate here..

as far as I'm concerned - any vote to authorize the initial invasion and any vote to continue to fund it is incredibly wrong wrong wrong

so do we vote for the "masteremind" behind the inital vote, or do we vote for one who followed along afterwards?

[sandnsea]

13. No, trusting Bush to end the war

just because the funding is ended is another leap we can't afford to take. Obama is stuck with bad options that Hillary's need to be a war hawk contributed to.

I could go on for days why Hillary isn't worthy of being our candidate. Their behavior in this election disqualifies them completely, even if you ignore everything else. You don't sue to disenfranchise voters because your plan to stack the election didn't work out. I don't know why anybody is still supporting them.

[radfringe]

14. then don't vote for her

vote for Bugs bunny if you want - he never voted for the war, nor voted to continue to fund it.

stealing the election aside - bush's narrow vote difference with Gore was based on 2 things:

1.taxcuts
2.and who to have a beer with

this election encompasses more than IRAQ, it's about every single domestic and foreign issue. the next president can't afford a honeymoon, nor time to "grow into the job" - they have to hit the ground running the minute they are inaugurated.

This is my yardstick - who can grab the wheel and turn this country around and headed in the right direction.

as for me - I don't know who I'll vote for. PA primary isn't until end of April.

I have reservations with All current candidates and ALL those who have dropped out. I'm not thrilled, enthralled or enthusiastic about any of them. kool-aid comes in many flavors, and none of the candidates are serving up my flavor.

[alteredstate]

17. Edwards has expressed regret over his vote.

Clinton hasn't.

[pampango]

11. "It doesn't matter how I vote, since I only have one vote." I hope my senator

doesn't use that logic on me to defend her vote on a controversial issue. I realize that the Senate is comprised of 100 senators of each have one vote. It matters to me how my senators use their one vote.

[Alexander]

2. Obama spoke out against it, Hillary voted for it. It's clear to me.

I prefer being against it and funding it to having voted for it and funding it.

[flordehinojos]

3. the thing is ... the man wasn't in the United States Senate at the time.

Would being there have changed his landscape. Would it have been more politically beneficial for him to vote Yes ... one never knows. He has said many times he would vote for Something or Against it and then his vote turns up all upsidedown or his vote is merely Present which, as Joementum one day said, there are only three buttons for senators or US representatives to cast their votes on.
One is green, meaning, Yes. The other is red, meaning, No. And there is a third button, that one is yellow and it means ABSTAIN. What in the blazes does a Present vote mean? Joementum asked. Is Obama a man of conviction, or is he a man of opportunities?

[ugdude]

4. Conviction

At that time, anti-war meant career suicide. He went against it while running for the senate, he did it despite the negativitiy it could have on his chances.

[sandnsea]

7. Are you really going to be that dishonest?

To mix up the Abstain vote in the US Congress with the Present vote in Illinois? Seriously??

[CarbonDate]

10. I regard them as separate issues.

The initial vote was the one they couldn't take back. Once we were in, we were in for the long haul, and everybody who was paying attention knew it.

Now, the votes to continue funding it are a bit murkier. Congress may control the purse strings, but barring a super-majority, they don't control troop movements: the President does.

The question is this: if Congress stops funding the occupation, do we trust President Bush to withdraw the troops, or can we count on him to leave them there to run out of food, water, and ammo and then blame the "Democrat Congress" for "hanging the troops out to dry"?

If we think about it, I'm pretty sure we know what this President would do, and so do Sens. Clinton and Obama. Rep. Kucinich apparently either believes that the President would do right by the troops, or else he doesn't care.

Actually, if they pull the funding in the hot summer months (I still remember those 120 degree days), they would probably run out of clean water before they ran out of ammo, and would likely all die of thirst within a few days. Of course, it wouldn't get that far. Once the troops started running dangerously low on water, Congress would immediately restore funding. Hopefully not too many would die of thirst before the water got there.

Would President Bush play chicken with our lives? Maybe, maybe not. Frankly, I'm glad that Sens. Clinton and Obama aren't.

Pulling funding, in my opinion, isn't the answer, but it does provide a convenient talking point for those who wish to portray Obama as being in favor of the occupation.

[moondust]

15. Good analysis.

It could be mighty tricky to stop funding a war on what may look like a purely partisan basis.

[radfringe]

16. kick