There is no excuse for anyone who voted for the IWR, and they should NOT run for President

[still_one]

In my view those in Congress who voted to give THAT MUCH power to the executive branch do NOT deserve to be President

How can a candidate in 2008 defend that vote?

[bobbie]

1. Agreed. They can't really defend it, they can only lie about it.

We were duped! Right congress critter. Sure you were.

[still_one]

3. There were people in Congress and outside of Congress who were against the IWR

They were NOT duped

[1932]

2. There's no excuse for anyone who hasn't addressed polarization of wealth

in America to run either.

If you can't tell that's the problem with this country today, I'm not voting for you.

[still_one]

4. I agree with your premise also

[1932]

7. If I had to chose between IWR Yes-voter and IWR No voter and the No voter

didn't care about the polarization of wealth and power that exists today and didn't care to fix the tax code and didn't care to do what it takes to have a more fair allocation of wealth and power in the US, and the Yes voter cared a great deal about those issues, it wouldn't even be a close call for me

[featherman]

5. It's not like EVERYBODY voted for it...some stood on principle and

wisdom and voted against it even in the face of frenzied, patriotic, "wave the bloody shirt" political climate. They were the heroes in this whole sordid episode.
For the ones who voted for it...well, they need to accept responsibility for the consequences.

[still_one]

19. It is the ones who voted against it, or were against it that should lead

As far as those who voted for it to accept responsibility, they should not be rewarded for their bad judgement

[Demobrat]

6. I agree totally.

I don't believe they were duped. We weren't. I think anybody who voted for the war did so for one reason only - because they were looking out for their own careers and to hell with everything and everybody else. Unforgivable.

[karash]

8. .

By that logic, shouldn't anyone who isn't vigorously advocating impeachment and international war crimes trials for the current administration also be undeserving of a vote? Because if the idea is that you will only vote for someone who will uphold the Constitution, defend America, and be intelligent in doing so, it seems you are led to that conclusion also.

[still_one]

20. Not the same thing. People have DIED because of the IWR

There is NO GRAY ZONE that Congress should give ultimate power to the administration to declare war and illegally wire tap

That is a DIRECT violation of the Constitution. Whether to impeach or not does not violate the Constitution

[bigtree]

9. been there

done that.

silly position really, since any candidate who we nominate will ultimately face someone who placed absolutely no stock at all in the IWR in their support for the invasion and occupation. Indeed, if the IWR had language which directly forbade Bush from invading he would have completely ignored it.

Bush doesn't refer to the IWR at all in his justification for the Iraq invasion and occupation. In fact, he pushed past the restraint mandated in the resolution to preemptively and unilaterally invade without "exhausting all peaceful means" and "returning to the Security Council."

The 'authority' Bush used was inherent in a loophole in the War Powers Act which allowed him to commit forces for a short period before seeking congressional approval, not the IWR who's provisions he clearly violated.

So, it's silly to bash our own party members who were completely opposed to what Bush ultimately did, for voting on a resolution that he ignored.

[Pastiche423]

10. Your final paragraph is a crock

W/constituents in all 50 states writing/calling their representatives, begging them to vote NO, they have no excuse for voting for it.

In the six weeks that preceded the IWR, I watched every day, Sen. Byrd stand alone on the Senate floor begging his fellow representatives to stop the wanton boy.

Btw, all of those "Byrd Watch" threads are in the archives.

[bigtree]

15. yet, Byrd campaigned for Kerry.

kinda turns the premise of the post on its head if you rely on Byrd as your anchor.

[still_one]

24. Not at all, Byrd's position on the war was very clear

He choose to vote for Kerry because Kerry was running against bush, and that was in 2004.

In reality, Kerry is no longer a viable candidate for 2008. and we should learn from the lessons of 2004

[bigtree]

33. Byrd rejected your premise that one should not vote for a candidate who supported the IWR

simple as that. You can make another argument if you want, but your original point was not shared by Byrd.

[still_one]

23. We have enough potential Democratic candidates who did the right thing

and those are the ones who should lead, NOT THE SHEEP

[LittleClarkie]

11. Eliminates alot of thinking, at the least

I don't live in that kind of black and white world, I guess.

[Pastiche423]

12. When I think of my country

killing innocent people that never harmed us, I do think in black and white.

Murdering those people may be cool w/you, but it isn't w/me.

[LittleClarkie]

13. In which case, I think of the man who wanted the war, who manipulated to get the war

who had this country so whipped up with patriotic furvor that people were afraid to dissent for fear of being called unAmerican, who used a tragedy like 9/11 for his own personal vendetta. And that man ain't a Democratic Senator. Do you really think if the IWR hadn't passed that it would have been anything but a speed bump to Bush?

[malaise]

14. We'll never know

but there were many opportunists who supported it.

[still_one]

28. That isn't the point. We all know what bush is

There were enough DEMOCRATS who voted against it because it was NOT only the right thing to do, it honored the constitution. It would NOT have mattered if it had passed or NOT, it is a VERY BIG PRINCIPLE

[Pastiche423]

38. Are you saying

that Kerry was afraid to dissent out of fear? If that is the case, then no way should he ever be a candidate for president.

I listened to his speech in real time. He knew it was wrong to vote for the IWR, yet he did.

[still_one]

25. of course you are entitled to that, but for me this was a BIG DEAL

Incidently, Clark was against us invading Iraq from the start, and so were enough qualified Democrats both moderate and liberal, that there is NO excuse not to make the correct choice

[still_one]

22. There are enough DEMOCRATS both in and out of Congress who voted against it

It is not that much to choose a DEMOCRAT who voted against it or WAS against it.

Just as I won't tolerate THIS administration for what they have DONE to our country, I will NOT tolerate anyone who authorized an invasion of a country that was BASED ON A LIE

But most important, there IS enough selection of people to find those who voted or were against it

[bigtree]

34. The IWR did not 'authorize' the preemptive, unilateral invasion of Iraq.

you can't find justification for what Bush ultimately did in the IWR. Not even Bush refers to it as authorization. He can't. He ignored the restraint mandated in the resolution; the restraint that Kerry and others fought to have included in the final draft to steer Bush back to the Security Council.

[The Magistrate]

36. Well Said, Mr. Tree

This is far from an important matter....

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Zzzzzzzzzzz... n/t

[still_one]

26. funny that you would waste your time even commenting if you were so bored

[Hubert Flottz]

17. Al Gore will solve your problem before he's even elected!

Go Al!

[still_one]

29. He is an excellent choice. Before the Iraq war he was against the invasion

but most important, he did win in 2000

[LWolf]

18. They can't.

They can spin, equivocate, and spin some more. None of which excuses the vote.

[Jacobin]

21. I agree with that statement 100 per cent

Many here on DU spent enormous amounts of time emailing, writing and calling senators and congressmen prior to that vote, to send them alternate views from the claptrap that the administration was spewing. I'm extremely proud of the many courageous democrats and some few republicans who listened, who sought out independent information, refused to be bullied, refused to be lied to and voted against this catastrophe. I do not believe that those who voted for it have the courage, judgment, or an adequate view of history to be commander in chief.

[Coventina]

27. I agree completely.

For that and other reasons, I am supporting Gore.

Hillary and the rest of the pro-war camp can kiss my anti-war ass.

[mnmoderatedem]

30. What was the overall tally of Dem votes in Congress?

I believe that it was less than half that voted yea, correct? Many pro war supporters assure me that dems "overwhelmingly" voted in favor of military action.

[GreenArrow]

31. I agree

Yet, somehow, nearly all the candidates being proposed for 2008 voted for it. All the Senators did, I believe. It says a lot about where the soul of this country is at that these folks are even being considered; indeed, that anyone taking an anti-war approach is an extremist, a loony, a defeatist, etc.

[mnmoderatedem]

32. for what it's worth

Obama voted against it. Should be a huge advantage for him. He's got my support.

[Pithy Cherub]

35. Correction. Obama spoke against the Iraq debacle

forcefully before the other war supporters voted for it. He wasn't in the Senate until 1/6/05.

[pat_k]

37. Like their failure to reject the unlawful Florida electors on Jan 6th, 2001. . .

. . .and their failure to reject the unlawful Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005, any Member of the Senate or House can redeem themselves as Sen. Boxer did. When she stood with Rep. Tubbs-Jones she also acknowledged/confessed to the grave mistake she made when she sat on her hands on Jan 6th, 2001.

As far as I'm concerned, any member who acknowledges/confesses to their failures on January 6th 2001 and 2005, and failure to fight tooth and nail against the Authorization to Use Military Force, can redeem themselves and make themselves worthy to serve in our highest office.

Much of our history is about confession, redemption, repair, and amends. (Of course, we have a ways to go to come to terms with our original sin -- the perversion of excluding 20% of us by arbitrarily defining an entire race as "non-people" so that we could continue to enslave them -- an intolerable state that "We the People" tolerated for 87 years.)

BTW, their culpability for their failure on the AUMF is actually far less than their failures on Jan 6th -- they too were victims of the bushcheney lies and false assurances to build an international coalition.

[Zhade]

39. Agreed. They abdicated their Constitutional duty to decide matters of war.

They didn't have the right to do that.