What did these 23 Senators know on 10/11/02 that so many others did not?

[RiverStone]

The IWR passed the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by Shrub on October 16, 2002.

Here is a list of members of the Senate who voted against it:

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)


QUESTION: What did these 23 U.S. Senators (above), 133 U.S. House Representatives, and millions of people protesting the IWR vote around the world know in October of 2002 that ANYONE who voted YES did not? :shrug:


* * * * *

IMHO, it is the most fundamental question (and answer) to ponder as I consider who I will support in the DEM primaries. Either in spirit or in vote, I seek to support any candidate first who had the moral conviction, guts, and insight to see unequivocally -that to vote YES and subsequently take our country into a tragic and needless war---was wrong.


RiverStone~

[Jcrowley]

1. K&R n/t

[jaysunb]

2. I couldn't agree with you more !

:thumbsup:

K&R

[babylonsister]

3. Sigh...

[Raster]

74. Yes, this shit again. And we ought to have this "shit" in people's faces over and over again.

*EVERY* last one of the bastards that voted to attack a country that did not attack us should be forced to answer the questions. Maybe it's not a valid question for you, but IT SURE THE HELL IS FOR ME!

on edit: It's called taking responsibility for your own actions. I don't for one minute believe that the majority that voted for the Iraq war believed the bullshit and babble coming out of the White House. And as long as there are people that will roll their eyes and "oh no, not this shit again," we will have spineless politicians whining about how they were duped. Were you duped? Nah, didn't think so.

[mod mom]

124. amen.

[Mind_your_head]

155. I "second" that 'amen' n/t

[beachmom]

126. The past AND the present are important. Perhaps what you can

study next are who voted no to the IWR AND voted for the Kerry/Feingold amendment which set a date for withdrawal of troops (a year from when it was introduced). Only 13 voted for it, while the others voted for the toothless Levin/Reed amendment.

I also think that senators who have come forward to AGREE with you that they were wrong and made a misjudgment, just like the great anti-war senators Fullbright, McGovern and Eugene McArthy who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam era, can be given a second chance if their sincere objective is to end this war.

I also think the blame is primarily on Bush. Am I wrong on that?

[Radical Activist]

135. n/t

oops. wrong spot.

[Radical Activist]

134. What is taking responsibility?

If someone realizes they were wrong, admits it, apologizes, and calls for a different course of action, is that taking responsibility for their mistake?

[Raster]

157. That is taking responsibility. Of course "realizing you were wrong" when public opinion

conveniently supports your position is a bit on the untruthful side. They weren't duped. They didn't have the courage to challenge something they knew was wrong. I wasn't duped. Most of the world wasn't duped. The United Nations wasn't duped. The list goes on and on. What's the old saying..."fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?" How many times now will the august body we call our Congress trot out the old "you duped me" canard? I say they weren't duped. They just did not do what was right. And I defy any one of the bastards to stand before us, look us in the eye and say they actually believed bush*--a known sociopathic liar of the first degree.

[bobbie]

144. Amen Raster.

Yeah, this mass murder "shit again."
That voting list is the most important criteria we have to decide who to support in office.
The 23 are the principled courageous ones. The others shouldn't be in office, let alone promoted (e.g., Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...).

[Herman Munster]

4. Read what Bob Graham has to say about that

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

[bleever]

40. That rushed NIE

is like a hastily mopped-up crime scene.

[mmonk]

5. Well, my youngest son figured out Iraq had nothing to do

with 9/11.

[UrbScotty]

13. Hell I figured that out too - and I was in my teens.

[Canuckistanian]

103. And here I am in another country - and I figured it out.

It wasn't hard.

Public documents, Scott Ritter (someone who was in Iraq before the war and saw for himself what the truth was) and the obvious reluctance of many countries (including my own) to join in.

This wasn't rocket science. Hell, it wasn't even 4th grade material.

There were no WMDs, No Al Qaeda influences, no threats to neighbors. If there were threats to neighbors, why didn't we hear from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Syria? Even Israel was silent at the time.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. I don't know what they

knew about the evidence, but they also knew that it was politically safe for them to vote that way. They also knew that the IWR would've passed without a single Dem vote.

[KoKo]

8. I'd say those who voted against it had a conscience and maybe

even though they knew the Repugs would outvote them...they still hung tough. Some running for President left their consciences by the door, though.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I'm not sure

conscience is the main factor. Senators often vote on things that might go against their conscience, but there's reason to do so. I don't know of any politician that ALWAYS votes his/her conscience. Politics isn't a field for overly-conscientious people.

This is Bush's war. Why try to blame it on Dems?

[Raksha]

50. It's relevant when you're thinking about who to support

and just as important, who NOT to support for president in 2008. What may have looked like the politically expedient choice in 2002 is looking not so expedient for 2008. Those Dems who voted for the IWR would have done a lot better voting their conscience.

[MonkeyFunk]

53. Yes, of course they would have

in retrospect.

But they voted to support a popular president in a popular cause - and I bet a number of them believed that no matter the rightness or wrongness of the cause, that the war wouldn't have turned into the clusterfuck it has become.

They calculated wrong. I'm not saying they were right - I'm saying that carrying on about a 4 year old vote that ultimately had no effect on anything is rather pointless.

The war would've occurred without a single Democratic vote. This is not the Dems' war - it's Bush's, and it amazes me that we spend far more effort here blaming Dems for it than we do Bush.

[Raksha]

55. I'm not blaming the Dems for it.

I refer to it as "Bush's Iraq war" or "the neocons' war." But that doesn't mean I'm gonna support Hillary in the primary! To my knowledge, she has still not publicly repudiated her IWR vote and therefore I hope she doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

[Mind_your_head]

156. OUCH!!! - I can't believe that you said this in your post ....

I'm saying that carrying on about a 4 year old vote that ultimately had no effect on anything is rather pointless.

Say that to the over 3,000 dead Americans and their families, Say that to the over 10,000+++ war wounded and THEIR families who will have to care for them, Say that to the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi's and their families, lastly....how about all the money that has been wasted that could have been used for far more lofty reasons.

You REALLY deserve a "punch in the nose" buddy, you REALLY do!!!!

[mike_c]

89. because they aided and abetted him....

eom

[Radical Activist]

139. No, it wasn't safe for all of them.

Dick Durbin was up for re-election that year and it was very controversial in his home state. The same is true for Paul Wellstone.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. As far as I am concerned, all the others are either spineless or stupid.

That was the worst vote in the last 100 years.

[yardwork]

9. Only two votes from the South - one retiring, the other totally safe

Bob Graham in FL was retiring and didn't have to defend his seat. Byrd will never be defeated in WV. Not a single other southern senator voted against it, because it would have endangered their seat. That's politics.

Most thinking people knew that this was a really bad idea, but voting for IWR was not the same as okaying the invasion. Shrub did that by himself.

[mdmc]

16. yes

:toast:

[fujiyama]

17. Give Contrad some credit

After all, ND is a very conservative state.

Also, Wellstone was locked in a tough race, but knew what was right.

I agree about some of the others from the South like Cleland. Hell, he was morphed into Osama and Saddam...

[MonkeyFunk]

26. exactly

I don't understand the desire here to blame this war on Democrats.

This is Bush's war, through and through.

[RiverStone]

35. There is plenty of culpability...

...to go around. Both in the DEM and rethug camp.

Yes MonkeyFunk, Shrub was the one who drove this insane war to the Senate seeking a fill up. And none of us here were stupid enough to vote for him in the first place. Yet, this is not about "blaming the Iraq war on Democrats" - it is about a cross roads in history where some people chose to put gas in BushCo's war machine and gave a green light to move forward by voting yes. Others had the courage, wisdom, and eyes WIDE open enough to vote NO. I do see there is personal accountability in that action (and vote).

This war came into effect packaged in lies and deceit - all generated in the Bush camp.

Though I'm baffled how so many DEMS did not see this insanity hiding in plain sight? I expected the rethugs to march in lock-step; I did not expect that from DEMS.

Again, IMHO - I do see the vote question as a very relevant one. A vote in which I hold those 23 Senators and 133 House Reps in particular high regard - for voting the way so many of us were already seeing -

peace~

[Clarkie1]

31. Kerry's seat was safe, was it not?

Why isn't he on the "no" list?

[MonkeyFunk]

33. because he was

planning to run for President.

[Clarkie1]

34. But isn't a person who runs for president supposed to set a good example? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Depends...

Kucinich sets "a good example" for many here, but he has zero chance of being president.

People seem to forget that Bush's approval rating at the time of the IWR was over 60%, some polls showing up to 70%. The public support for war against Iraq was around 60%.

As I said before, politics isn't a business for the overly-conscientious, and I think it's funny so many people here expect it to be.

[Seattleman]

96. It was all about the Shock and Awe!!

The media was the biggest cheerleader of the bunch. They swallowed (or participated) in all of those lies that were told to the American people in order to GET popular support. However, now that more of the "Truth be Known", the American people, with the exception of the Kool-Aid Drinking Bushites, have withdrawn their support.

Or, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time."

[nolabels]

108. As others might have thought theirs to be also

It's one vote and kind of a shady vote at that. They gave * that authority in a resolution, a green light, to continue on with investigations on Iraq and the so called WMD's. Using it for a litmus test okay but ultimitly the person in the executive branch has the responsibility make well on any good faith judgment. Yea, they voted wrong but do you spend twice as much time going over to freeper land and hammering them about it. After all, twice as many of them voted on it too.

[Pastiche423]

61. A correction

Senator Robert C. Byrd did not vote the way he did because his seat was safe. Check out the archives for the five weeks leading up to the October 10/11 vote.

Look for the "Byrd Watch" threads. Most of those threads were started by
Kephra. :cry: On the day of the vote, there were 18 Byrd Watch threads.

Senator Byrd stood on the senate floor, alone, for five weeks begging his fellow senators to stop El Mono from getting his war on. DUers sent him email upon email and made calls upon calls to his office, thanking him for what he was doing.

He called us his heroes.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

[yardwork]

81. I know. I was here and I was one who wrote to Byrd, thanking him

I admire and appreciate everyone who voted against IWR. I'm just saying that voting for it was not the same as voting to invade - that decision came months later and was shrub's alone.

Edit for spelling.

[tabasco]

133. Riiiight.....and giving a madman a gun doesn't kill anybody

in and of itself. But we expect people to consider the consequences of their actions.

I'm glad at the very least that many of the Dems that voted for the IWR have admitted their mistake.

Others have not, e.g., Hillary.

[cui bono]

110. Nope, they gave him the power to go ahead without checking back in...

they are accomplices and should not be considered presidential material.

They could have stopped him on something that was so obviously wrong and unsubstantiated and they didn't. What a disgrace.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Senator Durbin said he read the reports and they did not add up to him

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yeah, Durbin is really an underrated powerhouse in the Senate.

I like the guy a lot. I'm surprised more people don't talk of putting him on as Veep in 2008.

[Aviation Pro]

11. They knew that the President....

...was a completely unbalanced individual, who would become a clear and present danger to the republic and mankind if granted the authority given by the Iraq War Resolution. Unfortunately, his scary language convinced the majority to give him these powers and we have suffered ever since.

Removal of this psychotic, deranged man and his criminal cabal is the only option we have.

[2Design]

12. who are the 133 us house reps ??? n/t

[RiverStone]

14. Here you go...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

[PassingFair]

125. MAJORITY of House Dems voted NO!

MOST of them knew what they were up to.

NO PASS for yes voters.

Either they admit their cynical, "safe" (they have turned
out to be ANYTHING BUT "safe") YES votes were BULLSHIT, or
they get NO votes from progressives within their own party.

John Edwards is smarter than the average YES voter, he
owned up early.

[mdmc]

15. even worse would be knowing what they knew, and still voting for the war

Most dems that I talked to were against the war, and never said anything publicly. :mad:

[illinoisprogressive]

18. Aviationpro, I somewhat agree but, I think many voted for it because

they were afraid of looking too weak and cautious. Of questioning the president and not being patriotic.
Remember the flag waving fervor across the nation and if you thought of questioning the prez or not going along you were a coward or a traitor and a terrorist. Most gave in to the hype rather than take a stand.

[ConsAreLiars]

21. Afraid of standing against Chimpy and the PNAC monsters? That's an excuse?

Quite the contrary. That is why Democrats are reviled as "no different" than Republican and opportunist cowards by the masses. With good reason, as that vile and deadly collaboration has shown. The blood in Iraq is on their hands, and their shame will follow them to the grave.

[Pierre.Suave]

22. That still doesnt make it right

and the way I see it, makes it worse.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Yup, but they should've been smart enough to know that it wouldn't last

The military experts were predicting a quagmire from the start and sure enough the war's approval dropped as soon as our soldiers started coming home in body bags.

If I had been faced with the decision of voting NEA or getting re-elected I would've voted NEA and then run again in a few years. Voting against the IWR was not only the right thing to do, it was the smart thing to do and those who voted against it can certainly capitalize on it politically today.

[mike_c]

91. NO ONE who opposed the war has ever suffered any political...

...consequences for it. If they were afraid, their fears were completely unjustified.

[lyonn]

19. The more I see and hear Edward Kennedy the more

it seems a shame he can not run for president. He has become so politically savy. Chappaquitic (sp) will forever haunt him. Course Feingold is a goody too, but...

[mrcheerful]

20. 10/10/02 america was deeply unified into doing anything and everything GW straw-man could think of

anyone that disagreed with the King was declared an enemy of the state and was disposed of very quickly. Very few spoke out against what they saw going on, the ones that did pretty much were silenced, remember Dan Rather? When fear, smear and queer is the order of business very few acted, most of america drank the kool aid and reacted by giving up their civil rights. Its only since 2004 that the kool aid started wearing off and people saw Iraq for what it is, a quagmire set up to drain Iraq of its oil reserves to the benefit of a few. Now think about this, if DUer's can forget this quickly about the last 7 years what makes anyone think GW will be remembered or that the repukes and neo cons did will be remembered in 08?

How soon we forget how all liberals and democratic voters were thought of as weak, soft, anti-american, traitors, from 2002 until 2006.

[illinoisprogressive]

36. This is what I'm saying. The whole country, the people were in an ugly mood

I don't excuse them but, I can see why they might have acted the way they did. In order to understand and see the whole picture you have to try to see what someone might have felt.
None will ever admit to being just scared of the people and the administration. It's better to say you did not know. I'm sure some did know but, were afraid.
We have to see that they are human beings with flaws. To move on we have to see that.
Being so blindly angry gets you no where to understanding why.

[halobeam]

70. If you carry this view into today, then you'll see the human flaw

inside the Dems when they vote to keep funding the war?

How much are you going to let them off the hook for? They are accountable to their constituents who DID NOT want this war, and now DO NOT want to fund this escalation.... they wanted to stay with popular, at the expense of human life? What a hell of a human flaw.

Sorry.. but I'm only strongly disagreeing with you, I'm really not directing my angry tone at you personally, but I'm pissed at the "peer pressure" bullshit. These are grown ups and they need to act like it. Their job is to represent US. They failed at their jobs by voting yes to IWR and they will fail again IMO, when they vote yes to more funding.


JMO, of course.

[JackRiddler]

41. Untrue and no excuse!

This was the propaganda, that anyone who disagreed with Bush was a traitor. Never true, never a majority opinion. Stop making excuses for those who voted to rape another nation and, ultimately, kill millions of its citizens.

[mrcheerful]

66. In 2002 I was on quite a few forums and the odd thing was it seemed that I was the only one

posting anti war stuff. Until I stummbled accross DU I thought I was alone in thinking that giving the strawman the go ahead to use force against Saddam wasn't the best ideal. Chat rooms same thing, rah rah shrub. It might not have been seen that way in polls, but then I haven't been a big fan of how polls are conducted, the poll takers ask misleading questions most of the time. It was the same with local news beating the war drum, I had already stopped watching stations like CNN before 2002 because of the way they supported the courts putting the shrub into the white house.

[barbtries]

64. i think i could vote

for a candidate who was candid about the reasons he or she voted for the measure...and repented their mistake. but i don't really see anyone providing an answer satisfactory to me, because i'm just an ordinary citizen and i knew goddam well that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

[mike_c]

93. this just doesn't wash, and it's insulting to those who DID stand up...

...like the folks listed in the OP. NO ONE who voted against the IWR and Bush's war has ever suffered any political consequences for it. If the dems who aided and abetted this war were afraid of political consequences then their fears were imaginary and completely unjustified. It would be different if ANY of those fears had become reality, but just the opposite happened-- those who voted for it have been trying to get out from under that millstone ever since.

It was bad leadership at best, and betrayal of America's best interest at worst.

[Wizard777]

23. I think they had CNN instead of CIA. Now it's all CYA.

I know. It's cheating when you can just turn on the Tv and see UN Weapons Inspectors in Iraq finding a whole lot of nothing. It's not nearly as impressive as the CIA with all thier crystal balls, ouiji boards, and pictures of fire trucks. But alas we found a whole lot of nothing too. I'm talkin' cubic tons and tens of thousands of litres of NOTHING. They found so much NOTHING it would be impossible to catalog all the NOTHING they found. In fact they found so much NOTHING that there is actually NOTHING big enough to hold all the NOTHING they found. So If I had to sum up Bush in one word it would be NOTHING. He's done NOTHING for America. He's just a big NOTHING.

[RiverStone]

24. So these 23 Senators saw NOTHING...

...that made the IWR worthy of a YES vote?

Hence, they voted NO. Gawd, that makes so much sense.

Sounds right to me Wizard777! :)

Thanks~

[Tatiana]

25. That the so-called "intelligence" was cooked up in Rumsfeld and Cheney's kitchen.

That CIA analysts explicitly refuted all the allegations of a 9/11-Iraq connection that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al pushed on all the news programs.

Of course, Tenet later caved and backed Cheney up, but Senators like Bob Graham and Russ Feingold knew they were being sold a lemon.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. It's simple, the others made political calculations and decide it wasn't worth it to vote NEA

The ones that voted against the IWR don't talk about the vote that much because they don't want to be seen as condemning their fellow Democrats. But when you get them to talk about it, it's obvious how glad they are that they made that decision from the start. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and I believe Robert Byrd as well have all stated that it's the best vote of their careers. Coming from Kennedy and Byrd that's pretty amazing considering how long they've been in the Senate.

The others sold their vote for politics, or in a few cases perhaps they were actually duped, and they have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

[Hosnon]

29. I don't think they knew any more than those who voted for it.

They just didn't think the knowledge they did have was sufficient to go to war.

[Clarkie1]

30. They knew that defending the constitution is more important than politics. nt

[RiverStone]

43. Kick that!

Yes :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. They paid more attention to reality than the polls.

[JackRiddler]

38. Nothing

They merely had the courage not to deny the obvious. If I knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no connection to 9/11, based on unambiguous and public evidence, then every member of the Congress should have also. Those who approved the crime out of expediency, and now make the excuse that they did not know are not credible; they are the ones who will approve or cheerlead the next war of aggression, and they earn nothing but contempt and rejection.

[Disturbed]

44. The excuse that the Intell was flawed does not compute.

All of them who voted yes knew damn well that Busholini was going to invade Iraq based on lies. If they didn't know that then they were complete fools that shouldn't be in Congress. Short memory or selective memory is rampant. Hans Blix was still in Iraq finding nothing.

[eridani]

42. Because they are afraid of their constituents, 1/2 of whom are near sociopaths

If you don't believe that, what other explanation for the current Bush approval rating of more than 30%? Also, 100% of us are capable of being situational sociopaths if we are sufficiently fearful and actually have been attacked. Change in our political culture must precede changes in our politicians.

[Wizard777]

45. The other 1/2 of us that are psychopaths would like to keep it that way.

:silly: :crazy:

[burrowowl]

46. K&R

Anyone with half a brain knew the Bu$hies claims were bogus. Those who voted NO, had full functioning brains. The U$ of A is against functioning brains, re RyGun, Bu$h II, Bu$h I, Ford, etc.
Those who knew claims were bogus and voted to give him powers anyway are: frigging ass-lickers of the corporate state.

[sandrakae]

47. They obviously knew the SOB couldn't be trusted.

[slipslidingaway]

48. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE October 10, 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10238&position=all

snip>>

Mr. BYRD.

"Was he fighting
for this piece of cowardice here in
this resolution that gives to the President—
lock, stock and barrel—the authority
to use the military forces of
this country however he will, whenever
he will, and wherever he will, and for
as long as he will?
We are handing this over to the
President of the United States. When
we do that, we can put a sign on the
top of this Capitol, and we can say:
‘‘Gone home.’’ ‘‘Gone fishing.’’ ‘‘Out of
business.’’


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10248&position=all

snip>>

Mr. BYRD.

"The President’s doctrine—and we are
about to put our stamp on it, the
stamp of this Senate. The President’s
doctrine, get this, gives him—Him?
Who is he? He puts his britches on just
the same way I do. He is a man. I respect
his office. But look what we are
turning over to this man, one man.

The President’s doctrine gives him a
free hand to justify almost any military
action with unsubstantiated allegations
and arbitrary risk assessments.
Even if Senators accept the argument
that the United States does not
have to wait until it has been attacked
before acting to protect its citizens,
the President does not have the power
to decide when and where such action
is justified, especially when his decision
is supported only by fear and speculation.

The power to make that decision
belongs here in Congress. That is
where it belongs. That is where this
Constitution vests it. The power to
make this decision belongs to Congress
and Congress alone.
Ultimately, Congress must decide
whether the threat posed by Iraq is
compelling enough to mobilize this Nation
to war. Deciding questions of war
is a heavy burden for every Member of
Congress. It is the most serious responsibility
imposed on us by the Constitution.
We should not shrink from our
duty to provide authority to the President
where action is needed. But just
as importantly, we should not shrink
from our constitutional duty to decide
for ourselves whether launching this
Nation into war is an appropriate response
to the threats facing our people—
those people looking, watching
this debate through that electronic
lens there. They are the ones who will
have to suffer. It is their sons and
daughters whose blood will be spilled.

Our ultimate duty is not to the President.
They say: Give the President the
benefit of the doubt. Why, how sickening
that idea is. Our ultimate duty is
not to the President of the United
States. I don’t give a darn whether he is a Democrat or Republican or an
Independent—whatever. It makes no
difference. I don’t believe that our ultimate
duty is to him. Our ultimate duty
is to the people out there who elected
us.

Our duty is not to rubber-stamp the
language of the President’s resolution,
but to honor the text of the Constitution.
Our duty is not to give the President
a blank check to enforce his foreign
policy doctrine, but to exercise
our legislative power to protect the national
security interests of this Republic.
Our constitutional system was designed
to prevent the executive from
plunging the Nation into war in the
name of contrived ideals and political
ambitions."


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10347&position=all

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)

snip>>

WASHINGTON.--"A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation."

[RiverStone]

49. Thanks for sharing this...

Wise words from Robert C. Byrd.

Appreciate it slipslidingaway :)

[slipslidingaway]

84. YW and thank you. n/t

[Disturbed]

51. Members of Congress that voted to give this Pres. such

power should hang their heads in shame. My view is that of Sen. Byrd's. No Pres. should recieve a blank check to go to War. I did not vote for John Kerry. Since I live in CA it did not matter. I will not vote for anyone who did so.

[slipslidingaway]

85. Yes, putting the intelligence issue aside for a moment many

were willing to give him broad powers. Senator Byrd does have a way with words...

"The President’s doctrine—and we are
about to put our stamp on it, the
stamp of this Senate. The President’s
doctrine, get this, gives him—Him?
Who is he? He puts his britches on just
the same way I do. He is a man. I respect
his office. But look what we are
turning over to this man, one man.

The President’s doctrine gives him a
free hand to justify almost any military
action with unsubstantiated allegations
and arbitrary risk assessments."

edited to add link
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&page=S10248&position=all

[madfloridian]

52. Bob Graham warned them two days before...his fellow senators.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/967

He sounded angry.

[slipslidingaway]

112. Thanks for posting this link and the reminder that the Dems

controlled the Senate during the IWR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3067937


New Dem Daily | April 1, 2003
Good Night, Vietnam

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251439&kaid=131&subid=192

[leftofthedial]

54. unlike the others, these 23 knew

that their personal political fortunes in 2004 and/or 2008 Senate and/or Presidential elections would not be affected by voting with moral conviction.

The others "knew" they could derive personal political gain from voting with the war mongers.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Either that, or they cared more about doing what was right

than what was politically expedient.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Self-Delete. Dupe.

[JackRiddler]

63. Wellstone

He was up for re-election, and he voted his conscience. With 11 days to go before election day, he was ahead in the polls.

His plane crashed, killing him, his wife and his daughter.

So maybe it's true that voting with moral conviction is dangerous.

[leftofthedial]

120. it is dangerous not to be a fascist

here in the land of the free

[yurbud]

56. It's not what they knew that others didn't, it's what they chose not to ignore

and I would much prefer to vote for someone who didn't vote for the IWR than some piece of shit who was hoping for a lobbying or corporate gig when they retired, so they sold us, our troops, and the iraqis down the river to fill their pockets.

Regardless of the sales job the Bushies did, no one old enough to remember the Cold War could have believed for one second that Iraq was a threat to us. In the Cold War, we had MAD, mutually assured destruction, but if Iraq had attacked us with one of their non-existent WMD, it would have been OSHTSAD, Our Side Hurt, Their Side Assured Destruction.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. It didn't take any super-secret knowledge to be against the IWR. Hell, *I* knew that the rationales

were BS. I vivid remember screaming at the tv during Bush's 2003 SOTU speech, when he went on about the Uranium tubes- "that is known to be a fabrication!". If I, and millions of other Americans, had access to that kind of super-secret knowledge (from reading highly classified publications like Vanity Fair) then surely our congress had enough knowledge to make a fully informed decision, too.

And they did.

No, it didn't take knowledge to vote against the IWR, it took some other things that Senatorial honor roll you posted above possessed: Things like integrity, honesty, decency and courage.

And I think if anyone is considering putting a Senator on the 2008 Democratic Ticket, if they were in the Senate in Oct. 2002 and they're not on that list, they shouldn't be on the ticket. Period.

[Pastiche423]

62. In November 2004

I voted for two politicians that voted for the IWR. I am deeply ashamed that I voted for them. I did so out of fear. I will not repeat that mistake.

Both my Dem senator and representative voted against the IWR. Unfortunately, neither ran for president in 2004.

[notadmblnd]

65. Oh, they all knew it was wrong....

those are probably just the few that the BFEE didn't have dirt on and couldn't force them to vote for it.

[Zodiak]

67. of 19 DLC Senators, ONE voted against the provision

Conrad-ND.

The rest were just showing us how "centrists" are so much more politically savvy than liberals.

:sarcasm:

They are still telling us that, even in the face of all of the mistakes and impotent triangulations.

The DLC makes the Democratic party impotent with their Repubican enablement. Some are beginning to think it is on purpose.

[TZ]

68. Deluded and spineless

I actually think some of them actually wanted to believe the Bush was telling the truth and wouldn't lie about something that important. Plus there were just the spineless ones who didn't want to look like they were "soft on terrorists". I am pleased to say both my Maryland Senators voted agaisnt it...

[bigwillq]

69. Anyone have the House tally?

:shrug:

[RiverStone]

71. Check here...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

[bobthedrummer]

72. "Congressional approval and other Democratic Party deceptions"

by Larry Chin
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1664.shtml

[slipslidingaway]

113. Thanks, accountability for all. n/t

[indepat]

73. Not a 'puke on that list: they marched us into war in lockstep to their drummer's beat

meaning nary a 'puke senator had the moral conviction, guts or insight to just say no.

[RiverStone]

77. There was one - Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)

Though he was the only rethug who had his wits about him...

Having all the other rethugs march in lockstep was no surprise; having so many DEMS support Shrub's insane war machine was very disappointing. That vote alone is a distinguishing characteristic among our large field of DEM Presidential hopefuls - and I think it is a relevant character point to consider.

[indepat]

82. I forgot Lincoln: wonder if that vote cost him re-election?

[mike_c]

88. interestingly, I suspect it was more likely the votes of his fellow repubs...

...that cost him reelection. Chafee was swept out along with the trash, so to speak. His defeat was part of the general backlash against republicans. He himself acknowledged this and said it was a good thing. Tellingly, not one single dem or indie who voted against the IWR suffered ANY political consequences for it.

[femmedem]

106. No, that wasn't it.

I live in CT, near the RI border. Before I moved here, I lived in RI for 14 years, and still have plenty of RI friends. People agonized about who to vote for. People loved Chafee for that vote, but they didn't want to cede control of the Senate. It was all about a Democratic majority in the Senate.

[indepat]

83. I forgot Lincoln: wonder if that vote cost him re-election?

[porkrind]

75. It's not about what they knew or didn't know

but more about how entangled they are with the military/industrial/congressional Establishment. It comes down to who they serve: their constituents who vote them in, or big business who pays their way? Most politicians try to eternally triangulate between the two.

[Raster]

76. BINGO!!! You hit the nail SQUARELY on the head! When will people realize

that war--implements, weapons, infrastructure,etc--is *BIG* business in this country. Our country's number one industry AND number one export is WAR!!!

[mzmolly]

78. They knew not to trust this administration.

Along with over 100 congress persons.

[Hissyspit]

79. And none of them are running for president?

(not that the dem '08 candidate has to be a senator...)

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

119. That would give them quite the edge~

Why are none of the following Running?
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Bob Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

I see Feingold and Durbin on this list. Well, we do have a way to go yet.

~where the HeCk is my seatbelt??! :evilgrin:

[lazyriver]

80. This is a list of real patriots and history will remember

them for their foresight and bravery.

[Marie26]

86. Nothing

They just had the guts to do what they felt was right.

[mike_c]

87. they were traitors supporting terrorism and leaving America vulnerable...

...to the imminent threat posed by Iraq.

Oh, wait....

[Just-plain-Kathy]

90. I'm a nobody who knows about PNAC...

If leaders world wide knew about Cheney's ambitions to dominate through aggression...our democratic senate and congress should have known that Bush and Cheney wanted to attack their "axis of evil" prior to September 11, 2001.

Even now, democrats are willing to fund this surge purely for political reasons. They don't want to seem as if they're not in support of the troops.

Nancy Pelosi should say... We'll fund the safe return of our troops and NOTHING ELSE!

We have to get our troops home before Bush starts his war with Iran.

If we fund this surge democrats will once again be seen as the meek enablers of Bush.

:patriot:

[StudentDUer]

92. Human Decency

nt

[fooj]

94. Where's Schumer's name?

He's Durbin's roomie...

You think they would share info...

[The Count]

95. They knew one cannot play politics with people's lives

All the other knew the truth in different degrees, but chose to be opportunists.


"On some positions," King said, "cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question – is it politic? Vanity asks the question – is it popular? Conscience asks the question – is it right?
Martin Luther King

I should add that a special place in hell is reserved for those who didn't just vote for war, but help push it
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

And for those who think we can forget about that moment in history - maybe 100 years after this war is over. Not before.

[MasonJar]

97. 1 pug (of course it was Lincoln Chaffee) in the bunch.

[WI_DEM]

98. I've often wondered the same thing when supporters of certain people

say that they were not voting to authorize Bush to go to war, blah, blah, blah...yet these 23 Senators did know enough to vote against it because they understood what Bush's real motives were. It was no secret he was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq.

[SaveElmer]

99. What a load of self-righteous crap...

You have not a SCRAP of evidence, no one does, that the 28 Democrats who voted for the IWR were not taking their job just as seriously as the 23 that voted against it...or that they did so for purely political reasons...

I find it astonishing that so many here are so comfortable calling Max Cleland and John Kerry cowards...

[Pastiche423]

100. When the shoe fits...

[SaveElmer]

101. ...

[Pastiche423]

105. No, it isn't bs

it's my opinion.

[RiverStone]

102. Those 23 that voted No for the IWR...

Did not find a SCRAP of evidence to support it; that's why they voted NO.

Max Cleland and John Kerry are bright men, who deservedly won Medals of Valor for actions taken on the field of battle in Vietnam. That bravery is without question. Why they would vote YES when so many saw through the transparency of Shrub's rush to war madness is mystifying.

Indeed, they are NOT cowards - which makes it that much harder to understand why they would not have voted in opposition (except for political expediency)??? All speculation of course...

[SaveElmer]

104. That is simply not true...

Virtually every opponent of the IWR acknowledged the threat of WMD's in Iraq..explicitly...even the harshest critics of the CIA expressed no doubt that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons...

The argument was not over the problem but over the solution...

This was not a black and white issue...and it is very possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions about what to do, without having some nefarious reason for doing so...

WHat bothers me most is this blithe accusation of 28 Democratic Senators that they would callously throw away the lives of thousands of soldiers for selfish political reasons...without a scrap of evidence for that assertion...

[RiverStone]

111. Counterpoint - please read this from Bob Graham...

Thanks to DUer Herman Munster for this link (post #4 this thread). :)


What I Knew Before the Invasion
Bob Graham, former Senator from Florida (and NO on IWR voter)
Sunday, November 20, 2005

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

* * * * *

IMHO, there indeed was plenty of reasonable doubt (i.e. it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information) as well as representing an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them.

Ultimately SaveElmer, neither you or I were there for the vote and/or were not privy to the intelligence (or lack thereof) - all we can do is debate whether there was enough doubt on such a grave question to warrant a NO vote. I believe there was.

[SaveElmer]

117. Yes I agree..there certainly was a debate...

But Bob Graham, in his floor speech opposing the IWR said flat out:

“Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capability."

There is no doubt Graham was the most skeptical...but most of his skepticism was focused on nuclear capability...

And while I do not doubt Senator Graham's veracity in this 2005 article, why was he then unable to reign in the comments of other IWR opponents, who were even more explicit in their assertions of Iraqi WMD capability...

A couple of those follow:

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.” -Ted Kennedy

Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out its evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs…instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.” -Barbara Mikulski

Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new U.N. resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.” -Paul Wellstone

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.” -Russ Feingold

Overlaying this is that no Democrat viewed this vote as a vote for war...each was very explicit on this point. Saddam had NEVER cooperated with weapons inspectors without a credible threat of military action, a point affirmed by Scott Ritter. Each Senator was explicit that this was a vote to provide the leverage to reinsert inspectors who had been absent for 4 years. And in fact, inspectors did go back in, were doing their job, when Bush short circuited the process in March 2003...

I am not trying to argue that a vote for the IWR was ultimately the correct decision, but am arguing that a yes vote could be reached by intelligent people in good faith based on the same evidence as those opposing it. And certainly there is no evidence whatsoever that these 28 were callously voting to throw away the lives of American soldiers...that is a charge that is made because those making it know that it will be almost universally accepted without question...and with no evidence required...

There are alot of Clarkies on this board who like to tout his opposition to the IWR, while condemning those that voted for it. Yet Clark did not make the same criticism of those voting yes, and in fact agreed to be John Kerry's military advisor during the 2004 campaign...when Kerry was still defending his vote...and his comments in testimony to the House ASC show a mature realization that the solution to the problem was a complex one on which people could legitimately disagree...I just wish we saw some of that kind of maturity around here

[Clarkie1]

122. Clark said flat out that the senate should not give the President a blank check.

Hillary did, as did others. They were wrong. Clark was right.

I wish some Hillary and Kerry supporters had the objectivity and maturity to accept the facts, even when the facts put their candidate in a negative light.

Unfortunately, many of them don't seem to have reached that level of maturity, at least not yet. They triangulate and tapdance around, making lame excuses, much like the candidates they support.

I feel embarrassed for them.

[SaveElmer]

123. Hillary and Kerry had nothing to apologize for...

They took their jobs seriously and made a call based on the evidence...a fact General Clark has acknowledged...even if he did disagree on that vote...

I am disappointed Kerry and Edwards felt the need to make so abject an apology. Simply makes it look like they did not take their original votes seriously (which I think they did).

Too bad Clark supporters can't use the same maturity and forebearance that he displays

[Clarkie1]

127. It's very immature not to admit that you've made a mistake, when a mistake was made.

I will give Edwards and Kerry credit for acting more like grown-ups than Hillary on this matter.

Hillary's behavior is frankly more like that the childish G.W.B...being afraid of admitting a mistake for fear of appearing weak.

[SaveElmer]

128. Baloney...

Recognizing that the evidence you based your decision on was false, and acting on that information, is different than apologizing...

No apology is required if you are taking your job seriously...which all of them were.

She, Kerry, and Edwards made perfectly defensible decisions at the time...that they apologize simply implies they weren't serious about their votes...

[Clarkie1]

129. They did not make "perfectly defensible decisions."

The put politics and personal ambition before patriotism and duty, and that will never be forgotten.

[SaveElmer]

131. Bull...

You have no proof of that and never will...it's a statement you can make that almost everyone believes about politicians..and that requires no evidence on the part of those asserting it...

It's a cop out position!!!

[Clarkie1]

132. Wrong. Just read Senator Kennedy's statements.

You know where to find them. Everyone knew the vote was wrong.

The cop-out postitions were the votes cast by Kerry, Edwards, and Hillary. At least Kerry and Edwards have shown the maturity to admit their mistakes.

[SaveElmer]

137. In fact I have read Kennedy's statement...

And in it he says this...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.”

Which debunks the notion that these No votes had somehow seem through the intelligence lies...

Your ridiculous assertion that one must apologize for doing their job is just the 20th century manifestation of the Salem witch trials...admit your guilt (whether you were or not), and you go free...

Unfortunately Kerry and Edwards felt the need to apologize for simply doing their jobs!!!

More important is to recognize what went wrong and learn from that knowledge....which I believe every Democratic yes vote (except Lieberman), has done.

[Clarkie1]

141. Nice try, get back to me once you have the courage to post the statement

you know I was referring to...the one where he says everyone knew the evidence just wasn't there and it was the most important vote of his life.

[SaveElmer]

142. So Kennedy is a liar...hmmm!!!

Or a flip flopper...

For more perspective...here is Russ Feingold's view of the evidence for WMD's in October of 2002...

“With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.”

[Clarkie1]

143. You are becoming incoherent...why are you accusing Kennedy of being a liar?

Feingold was a patriot who did the right thing a voted NO. Why don't you post the rest of Feingold's statement explaining why he voted no?

You are the flip-flopper...flip-flopping the subject when it doesn't suit your agenda. Why did you bring up Feingold and insinuate that Ted Kennedy is a liar?

Your attempted defense of Hillary's vote by attempting to smear Kennedy and Feingold should be embarrasing to all her supporters.

[SaveElmer]

145. You simply cannot stick to the subject...

You have been proven wrong on the view of WMD's...virtually every Senator viewed them as real...including Feingold, Kennedy, Wellstone...all of them...

The debate was over what to do about them...

Then you come up with a ridiculous cop out position that those that voted yes were willing to throw away the lives of American soldiers for political gain...with no proof of course!

And now you imply those that voted Yes are not patriots...

You are an example, unlike your hero apparently, who recognizes that there is such a thing as debate, and it is possible to take different positions on an issue, without being irresponsible, unpatriotic, or callous towards the lives of others...

General Clark see this, hell Ted Kennedy sees this as his early support of John Kerry in 2004 demonstrates...

It is the rigid intolerance of folks like you that demand perfection in their politicians, that is embarrasing...

[Clarkie1]

146. I see you do not have the courage to post Kennedy's statement, so here it is.

KING: You called Iraq the overriding issue. You voted to go there or not?

KENNEDY: No. The best vote I cast in the United States Senate was...

KING: The best?

KENNEDY: The best vote, best vote I cast in the United States Senate (INAUDIBLE).

KING: In your life?

KENNEDY: Absolutely.

KING: Was not to go to Iraq?

KENNEDY: Yes, not to go to Iraq.

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."

Because the answer was because they're moving things, because when we tell the team they're all infiltrated by Saddam's people and they're leaking that so that's the reason we're not finding anything.

They started giving all the places where we said there were places and they still couldn't find any. And at the end of now, history will show we never gave any information to the inspection team at all.

But I kept saying, "Well, if they're not finding any of the weapons of mass destruction, where is the imminent threat to the United States security?" It didn't make sense.

There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

[SaveElmer]

147. Then in his floor statement opposing the IWR...

He was lying when he said...

“…I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people…and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed.”

In that interview he contradicted what he said in October of 2002...

[Clarkie1]

148. I disagree with you that Kennedy was lying.

Your attempted defense of Hillary on the matter of the IWR vote has become embarassing...and I honestly do feel embarrased for you right now.

Look, you've been reduced to calling Ted Kennedy a liar, just stop. Please, just stop.

[SaveElmer]

149. Well then he was engaging in a little CYA later on...

These statements contradict each other...and his 2002 statement comports with what virtually every other Senator said, which is why I brought up Feingold...for comparison.

[Clarkie1]

152. Pathetic. I have nothing more to say to you.

Your "defense" is as pathetic as her vote. You're a perfect match for your choosen candidate.

[SaveElmer]

154. Funny how every sort of insult directed at Hillary is perfectly ok around here...

But point out the contradicting statements of one of the DU annointed ones, and watch out...

What hypocrisy...

[Clarkie1]

150. It is you are saying he was lying, not I.

It's shameful that you are stooping so low...

[SaveElmer]

151. Then explain the contradiction...nt

[SaveElmer]

153. You know what...

I do not want to be put in the position of bad mouthing Ted Kennedy...I admire him greatly. But that he could have these kinds of contradictions in his statements only highlights for me how complex the issue was at the time...

I don't know why they contradict, maybe ha had something else in mind with his first statement. But the fact remains...virtually every proponent and opponent of the IWR in October 2002 acknowledged to some degree, some very explicitly that Saddam was dangerous, probaably had WMD's and needed to be disarmed...there was very little dispute about that!

[Martin Eden]

115. Extremely Poor Judgement

If the 28 Democratic senators based their YES votes on careful consideration of the consequences, then IMO they demonstrated Extremely Poor Judgement. Did they not know of PNAC and the character of the Bush administration? Did they fall for the obviously trumped-up case for war? Were they ignorant of the information readily available to us here at DU? Did they know anything of the political/cultural reality of Iraq and the region?

Without knowing what was in each of their hearts and minds, I'm not accusing them of selling out. However, voting to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq without coming back to congress for a declaration of war automatically disqualifies that Senator or Representative from receiving my vote in a Democratic primary. It was the most important vote that most of them will ever take, and the consequences have been disastrous for our country.

We need a leader who doesn't make disastrous decisions when the stakes are incalculably high.

[SaveElmer]

118. You are conflating later revelations...

With what was known in October 2002...yellow cake, Joe Wilson, the Clarke revelations all came later...

Virtually every Senator opposing the IWR acknowledged the threat of WMD's...some explicitly so...some even praising Bush for bring them to light

General Clark, who opposed the IWR nevertheless recognized the complexity of the issue, and does not hold the same viewpoint as those here on those voting for the IWR...as his position as one of John Kerry's top advisors during the 2004 campaign attests...while Kerry was still defending his vote...

A maturity displayed by General Clark that is sorely lacking around here...

[WilliamPitt]

107. They voted with Byrd on the constitutional aspects of it all.

Go read their statements for your answer.

[Lawrence]

109. vvv

I knew it was going to be a fool's errand since the beginning and opposed it. I had a republican roomate back then who argued for it's necessity.. I kinda wish I still lived with him so I could rub it in his face.

[generaldemocrat]

114. Because they're smart and they have good judgment.

They ANALYZE information rather than gobbling it up off hand.

Also, they're probably not as beholden to pro-war interests as the ones who voted for IWR.

[annabanana]

116. They knew that B*sh did not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Face it..He was "only" asking for the right to use the club, so that Saddam would take the UN Strictures "seriously".

Every single Dem who voted "yes" thought, or chose to believe, (all indications to the contrary) that
1) The sitting President was telling the truth.
2) He wouldn't DARE be so rash as to actually use the club.

I had more than one Repug tell me . ."He's only saber-rattling".

[nam78_two]

121. I don't know wither, but K&R.nt

[catrose]

130. I kept this list posted by my computer until we moved later that year

I wrote Ted Kennedy, then my senator, and thanked him for his vote. I asked him to keep the junior senator in line. I wrote said junior senator (Kerry) and told him what I thought of everyone who voted for war powers.

[Clarkie1]

140. Indeed. That vote certainly separated the senior senator from the junior senator.

At least "junior" has admitted is error in judgement...which is more than can be said of the junior senator from N.Y.

Hillary still has a lot to learn about humility...and I expect she will learn a lot about it in the next two years.

[mb7588a]

136. Sadly, 7 are gone.

That leaves 16 who are the lone remaining dissenting voices. Sad.

[Radical Activist]

138. I'm glad I saved a certain post for just this occasion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3056895&mesg_id=3056895