General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe Democrats have to be honest about the Iraq War....
Despite strong evidence that Iraq had no WMD's, many of our Democratic leaders voted for authorization.
Here are the brave Senators who voted against it.
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward 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)
The not so brave who voted for it:
Max Baucus (Mont.)
Evan Bayh (Ind.)
Joe Biden (Del.)
John Breaux (La.)
Maria Cantwell (Wash.)
Jean Carnahan (Mo.)
Tom Carper (Del.)
Max Cleland (Ga.)
Hillary Clinton (N.Y.)
Tom Daschle (S.D.)
Christopher Dodd (Conn.)
Byron Dorgan (N.D.)
John Edwards (N.C.)
Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
Fritz Hollings (S.C.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
John Kerry (Mass.)
Herb Kohl (Wis.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)
Blanche Lincoln (Ark.)
Zell Miller (Ga.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Harry Reid (Nev.)
John Rockefeller (W.Va.)
Charles Schumer (N.Y.)
Bob Torricelli (N.J.)
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Most of the folks on the "YES" list have recanted their votes. Said it was wrong and a mistake.
I can't remember how many times we have gone over and over the IWR vote.
And honestly I'd personally like to kick every DU'er in the ASS who campaigned against John Kerry in 2004 with their fucking "But he voted for the WAR." bullshit. In '04 we had a chance to elect a LIBERAL for President. But we fucking threw it away for FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH and his economic meltdown.
trumad
(41,692 posts)God Damn I hate head in the sand Democrats.
So God Damn what if they recanted...They shouldn't have voted for it in the first place.
We're rehashing it because it's in the fucking news the last couple of days or have you not noticed.
emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)Well I hate Democrats who cut of their noses to spite their faces.
Of course they shouldn't have voted for it.
However, As far as I am concerned this effort of yours smacks of purist Teabaggery. Great, lets get rid of the liberal democratic senators. Lets defeat the liberal candidate for Pres and let George Bush win.
Looking forward to watching Rachel's special - she will kick ass on this.
trumad
(41,692 posts)really---did you go there?
The same kind of can't see the forest for the trees extremism.
I am pissed too that these people voted YES. However I can see the great work some of them have done since.
Sorry I still cannot get over the 04 election.
trumad
(41,692 posts)1) Was a yes vote for the war resolution a mistake? From the looks of things, you say yes--"you're pissed".
2) Was there ample enough evidence that Iraq had no WMD's?
3) Did that vote give Bush the authorization to go to war with Iraq?
4) Did that war kill thousands of innocent people?
I'm pretty sure you will answer yes to all the above.
Look--- I'm not saying that we need to remove Democratic politicians because they voted for the war.... I'm simply pointing out that that their colossal mistake should not be forgotten.
Oh and one more thing---if you ever imply that I have teabagger philosophy, me and you are going to have a problem...kapeesh?
kentuck
(111,102 posts)It was a monstrous and deadly mistake in judgement. And who is to say they would not do it again if under similar circumstances. They were too easily hoodwinked. That is a problem.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Aggressive war isn't forgivable.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)were dead soldiers, civilians, grieving families and the US taxpayers. No politicians were ever held accountable. It's been "forgive and forget" but the ongoing problems caused by their errors in judgment (or outright fraud) cry out for acknowledgment.
tavernier
(12,392 posts)is because he is the lesser of two evils; a crappy reason to vote for anyone, IMO, but there it is.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)who runs this party and what much of the leadership really stands for?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)if the war went swiftly and well and was popular (no matter how dishonest the reasons were for starting it).
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Obama didn't enter the Senate until 2005, so he didn't vote on the IWR, but he is on record as being opposed in 2002. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html
Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His Oct. 2, 2002, speech opposing the war stands in clear contrast to Clinton's vote later that same month to authorize military action.
Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.
His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops. A list of votes compiled by the Clinton campaign is available here. See here for the TalkingPointsMemo version.
Clinton and Obama on Iraq: A Chronology
2002
Oct. 2. Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama gives speech opposing war in Iraq. He said he did not oppose "all wars," but he opposed "dumb wars," and wanted to finish the job against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden rather than start a new war in Iraq. He predicted that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Oct. 11. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) casts vote to authorize use of military force in Iraq if President Bush determines that "diplomatic means" fail to remove the "national security threat" against the United States. See authorization resolution here. In Oct. 10 floor speech, Clinton described the Senate vote as Saddam Hussein's "last chance -- disarm or be disarmed." She said her vote is not "a vote for any new doctrine of preemption."
2003
March 20. Invasion of Iraq begins. See chronology here.
Nov. 3. U.S. Senate approves $87 billion package for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq on a voice vote. Clinton's vote not officially recorded.
Nov. 16. Obama tells Chicago community activists that he would have voted against the $87 billion package, explaining, "At a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush." See video here. In January 2008, Clinton claimed in speeches and interviews in New Hampshire that Obama promised never to fund the war. Her aides cite this 2003 speech as evidence, but context shows that Obama was referring specifically to the $87 billion request, not future requests.
2004
July 26. In an interview with the New York Times, prior to his speech at the Democratic Party convention, Obama declines to criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. Says he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports." He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
July 27. Obama tells Chicago Tribune that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq to stabilize the war-torn country. Says "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage," but is critical of Bush for bungling the occupation. Remains opposed to the original decision to invade. In keynote speech to Democratic convention, Obama avoids criticism of the war, saying "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
September 19. Associated Press reports that Obama, running for Illinois Senate seat, would be willing to send more troops to Iraq if it would create conditions for eventual withdrawal. Says it would be "an extraordinary accomplishment" if U.S. could withdraw from Iraq in four years. Remains opposed to invasion decision.
2005
Jan. 4. Obama sworn in as U.S. senator.
Jan. 13. Obama tells Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice, in Senate confirmation hearing, that he is "rooting for success" in Iraq, while pressing her for a better-defined exit strategy.
Feb. 19. Clinton, making her second trip to Iraq, says that "insurgency is failing" and much of Iraq is "functioning quite well" despite a rash of suicide bombings.
April 13. Obama opposes Sense of Senate amendment not to delay vote on providing military funding for Iraq because of a concurrent debate on immigration reform. Clinton votes in favor.
Nov. 22. In speech to Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Obama calls for "gradual" withdrawal from Iraq in 2006 and criticizes Bush administration for trying to stifle dissent on the war.
<snip>
trumad
(41,692 posts)Those were the days when Dem's were terrified about appearing weak on defense.
The PNAC had the perfect opening and exploited it perfectly. Richard Clarke said in his book that the day after9/11, it was all about Iraq.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)who voted for the war, for whatever reason, got snookered by the Bush machine into thinking
all they were saying about Saddam was true. Too trusting? Perhaps some had
rose colored glasses on.
Who, in their wildest dreams, would think a President of the United States would make up
stuff, and send our country's young men and women to die, to promote a neo-con
agenda where the war machine would profit to the nth degree?
And remember, some of them may well remember Bill Clinton saying:
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
I like to think of the ones who voted against this travesty were free thinking and skeptical and first and foremost, hate war.
Some day, I would love to see an expose on exactly what the INDEPENDENT evidence was that supported the statement that "all the countries in the world thought Saddam had WMD" I never heard a single question to them on that. I suspect they "all thought it because the US told them."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is a basic problem in our culture, the rewarding of failure and the punishment of excellence. The way to gain power in DC is to make horrible, murderously stupid mistakes on the biggest issues possible.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Common decency and humanity are absent.