Why Oh Why did so many Elected Democrats support Iraq Invasion?.

(Reading these two articles this morning I just couldn't get out of my head that BIG QUESTION...Why did so many Dems in House and Senate not question what was going on. Surely they knew. At least the ones on the Intelligence Committees what Bush was doing. Certainly Kerry and Edwards, Gephardt, Daschle and Biden knew or would have wondered why we were doing so many airstrikes before the war began and the reports were out there about the intelligence being faked and that some in Bush's own administration plus Bob Woodward had warned that Bush was going into Iraq. Why? and how are they going to dig themselves out of this now that the DSM's prove it? How are our Dems who supported it going to come to grips that Bush should be impeached for lies when they were complicit? The Nation Magazine has an article saying they will never impeach because they were complicit. But these two articles linked say to me that they must impeach because to not do it will make them vulnerable politically. :shrug:

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Published on Monday, June 20, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann

Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another impeachable crime.

The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be vulnerable to impeachment.

Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We had bad intelligence."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0620-22.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

How Cheney Fooled Himself

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A21

President Bush planted the seeds of the destruction of his Iraq policy before the war started. Salvaging the venture will require an unprecedented degree of candor and realism from a White House that was never willing to admit -- even to itself -- how large an undertaking it was asking the American people to buy into.

The notion that the president led the country into war through indirection or dishonesty is not the most damaging criticism of the administration. The worst possibility is that the president and his advisers believed their own propaganda. They did not prepare the American people for an arduous struggle because they honestly didn't expect one.

How else to explain the fact that the president and his lieutenants consistently played down the costs of the endeavor, the number of troops required, the difficulties of overcoming tensions among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds? Were they lying? The more logical explanation is that they didn't know what they were talking about.

Because the White House failed to prepare Americans for what was to come, the administration now faces a backlash. Over the weekend Bush said that the terrorists in Iraq were seeking to "weaken our nation's resolve." But the rising impatience about which Bush complains is a direct result of the administration's blithe dismissal of those who warned just how tough the going could get.

IMO for what it's worth

they were succeeding

I wasn't politically active back then so I don't know. They didn't have power did they?

rather than give the asshole-in-chief card blanche

them work. That was AGAINST the IWR.

That is what Bonifaz said in his testimony - Bush issued a false statement based on the IWR's stipulation that after weapons inspections, if Bush decides to invade he must issue an OFFICIAL letter to congress that explains why he determined war was necessary.

People make the mistake of believing the Rovian media spin that IWR allowed Bush to do as he pleased, to keep the Dems divided.

IWR would have PREVENTED war if implemented HONESTLY.

Blame Bush for determining war was necessary despite the weapons inspections as per IWR. Don't blame the IWR.

Impeach Bush because he issued a FALSE STATEMENT to Congress that he found war was necessary AFTER the weapons inspections, as per the IWR.

Use the IWR to IMPEACH BUSH. That is Bonifaz' approach and it is the one we should all be supporting.

applauding him.

Blaming the IWR is WRONG....stupidly wrong, and we can't afford to NOT get behind Bonifaz and BLAME BUSH for NOT IMPLEMENTING THE IWR HONESTLY.

The IWR would have PREVENTED WAR. The guidelines stipulated that Bush determine war was necessary after weapons inspections and that he must do it in WRITING in a letter sent to Congress.

Bush issued an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT to Congress that war was necessary even after weapons inspections.....he issued a FALSE STATEMENT in an official document. That's a crime of office and an impeachable offense.

The IWR vote was in October of 2002, stupidly scheduled by Daschle in an attempt to get the issue off the table so that the Senate could move on to *real* business. He also wanted to give cover to certain Dems who were vulnerable on supposed national security issues.

So, short answer is yes, we still had some power. And yes, we could have held the vote after the 2002 midterms. Instead, we caved, gave the right wingers the vote they wanted, and made damn sure that the majority of voters saw so little difference between us and the republicans that we were slaughtered in that election.


While I didn't want Daschle defeated and Thume in his place, I certainly never understood why such a person was in the position of Majority Leader. :shrug:

I mean if you believe the vision of America the MSM puts out there, we all love war because we love to watch it on our idiot boxes.

Every wonder why one of the biggest war contractors in the world bought up a sizable amount of the U.S. Media?

Beware the Industrial-Military-Media complex!!!

The issue boxes people in. Anti-war = Anti national security, weak, pacificist, loonie leftist.

The best thing we can do for the future of humanity is destroy the media landscape and build a new one.

Every goal is secondary to this primary goal. As it is now we are trying to push a 10 ton truck up steep hill. What we need to do is fix the engine and then drive it up that hill.

.

Instead, it was a combination of the political climate, a desire to believe their president would not give them fake facts, and a desire to protect Americans. They were wrong to trust this leadership, but they did not vote out of any 'facist' tendancies, as I've heard here. They did not vote for the corporations. They voted on the facts they were given and the idea that they had a moral obligation to keep us safe from Saddam.

It's easy to say in hindsight, "Well, they shouldn't have trusted Bush." But even I know NOW how much and how well this administration hides the truth. But had you asked me 3 years ago, I had no idea.

Now, can we please start focusing on attacking the neocons instead of dems?

be an understatement....which makes the respect for those who voted against giving the idiot supreme power even more profound.

People WANTED us all to be AMERICANS not dems or repubs but Americans. So it's not about saying "we was ambushed..." it's about people trying to be the UNITED States.

The fact is that had they had a leak of the downing street minutes back then, most congressmen would not have voted for the war.

I still will abide by my statement, "Please, everyone, stop the infighting and the name-calling of dems--instead take your anger out on the neocons." Also, organize, organize, organize as they said at the Rainbow Push Conference. Speak out for civil rights, labor rights, and get involved. There is a rally in Atlanta Aug. 6th, go to it. That is ultimately more useful than sitting here on the computer fighting with each other. The republicans COUNT on us bashing each other.

Bush used that time to take advantage of the situation. Were there anybody who voted against the war? Does anybody know? But you're right. Enough people in the public believed Bush about Saddam and wanted revenge on 9/11. He purely manipulated the public and our emotions. I think that's the angle we should be playing since it's what happened.

My 80 year grandmother who's voted GOP for the last 40 years thought the war was unnecessary and thought Bush was obsessed lunatic. And she formed this opinion well before the bombs started dropping. I'd like to think that leaders of the opposition party would view the Bush Administration with a more critical eye than an elderly loyal Republican.

The signals that the White House was bullshitting us were loud and clear before the invasion. Their unwillingness to share intelligence with the weapons inspectors, their repeated attempts to link Saddam to 9/11 (which were clearly known to be bullshit at the time), and their impatience with the world community all suggested that they were determined to go to war whether or not it could be justified by a real WMD threat. That's not to mention the fact that they still haven't given a clear answer as to why diplomacy is an acceptable for other countries producing WMD, but not Iraq.

As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, the majority of the Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq War Resolution. They had the same information in front of them as those who voted for the IWR. Was this anti-war majority traitorous for failing to defend against the perceived threat?

I tire of the endless Dem-bashing that occurs on this board too, but we need to hold leaders of the party accountable when they make really bad decisions. The invasion of Iraq is arguably the worst policy decision made in the last 20 years and anyone who put their stamp of approval on it made a huge mistake, and they shouldn't be given a free pass on it. I know I can't expect all Democrats to support exactly the same things I do, and that compromise is a critical part of the political process, but you gotta draw the line somewhere.

Sorry to be so blunt. But anyone who paid half a nano-second's worth of attention to what the bastard did in Texas knew not to believe him. There were plenty of people- indeed, plenty of Texans- telling the rest of the nation not to be sucker punched.

This thread *is* an attack on neo-cons- supposed Dems in PNAC clothing. If one supports the neo-con agenda of PNAC, then they darn well deserve to be attacked- regardless of party affiliation.

The info was out there that the intel was being fixed back then. Everybody who knew anything knew the case for WMD was flimsy at best. Everyone knew the IWR was a go-ahead for war, not a threat to back up the inspectors. All that shit is just a way for cowardly democrats to cover their asses when being questioned by their own liberal backers.

It doesn't wash with me. I don't buy their pathetic excuses anymore than I bought Bush's pathetically obvious lies back in 2002.

The 9/11 - be tough with terrorists or else mode. I suppose Democrats thought it would be in bad form not to support Bush on Iraq even though they knew the intelligence was 'cooked' They were ill-advised on this one.

Unfortunately there are people on both sides that can't be trusted.

Damned If I Know

and the country was still in uber "Patriotic" mode.

I don't mean to make excuses for them but we have to remember the time this vote happened.

Welcome to DU by the way! :hi:

Because their corporate masters told them to support it.

Welcome to the two party/same corporate master system of government.

in a nutshell. They knew what they were voting for. Even if they didn't approve of the means, they approved of the goal. "There was a right way and a wrong way to do this." Gotta break those eggs to make the omelet.

Many of these Democratic Leaders have invested WEALTH in the Military Industrial WAR Machine.

We'd have lost 40 more seats that year had we not gone along with it. It's convenient to forget now, but we really had no choice then.

constituents in their very liberal constituencies BEGGING them not to support the IWR, and they did it anyway, with huge anti-war marches in their major cities and barrages of letters and e-mails and phone calls from anti-war people.

No, they fell for a propaganda campaign. They fell for a White House pressure campaign saying that their constituents would reject them if they voted "no."

Many Dem senators who were NOT up for re-election that year voted "no." Oregon's Ron Wyden was one. (Thirty thousand people marched in Portland. That's ten percent of the population of the city.)

Wellstone made headlines as the only senator who was up for re-election who voted against the IWR. His approval ratings actually went up by 6 points after his "no" vote.

According to one of the Minnesota DUers who attended a fundraiser for Wellstone after the IWR vote, Sheila Wellstone told her that Paul had been lobbied relentlessly by the Republicans telling him that his constituents would reject him for his "no" vote.

The fact is, Kerry, Clinton, Feinstein, and all the others who went against the sentiments of their constituents did so out of chicken-heartedness and a lack of principle.

for the dem. party!

Sorry, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is never a smart decision.

Refraining from attacking a country that hasn't attacked you first is a matter of international law, morals, and common human decency.

Voting to attack a country because you place your career above your moral principles is not being "non-ideological." It's being amoral.

The democrats who voted for this war valued political gamesmanship and/or greed more than integrity.

Ever hear of "live to fight another day"? Guess not.

only if we're going to be on the winning side? I guess those Dem Senators who voted "no" were a bunch of idealistic idiots, huh?

What ever happened to going on record with your opposition? Should Supreme Court justices stop writing dissenting opinions simply because they disagree with the majority?

This wasn't some picky little procedural vote. This was a major, major issue, a question of whether the U.S. was going to start an unprovoked aggressive war.

May I remind you that "waging aggressive war" was one of the charges that were brought against German and Japanese government officials and military commanders in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

I've observed that average American people like feisty politicians who stand up for what they believe, and they aren't particularly ideological about it.

Kerry would have been in a much stronger position to say, "See, I told you so" if he hadn't voted for the IWR, and he would have won points for consistency. By voting "yes-no-maybe so," he undermined his own credibility.

The "idealistic idiots" are the ones who expect every Congressman and Senator to vote exactly alike regardless of his or her re-election status.

Nothing short of physically restraining Bush, Cheney, AND Rumsfeld simultaneously would have changed us going into war.

Ethical principals and international law mean nothing?

Why lose EVERYTHING to make an impotent stand? I'm sorry, but MY principles tell me that my efforts are much more effective if I continue to be in power.

So you make a stand on the war? Okay, good.

The war happens anyway, and now you've pissed away your chance to oversee the war, in addition to losing any say you have in the priorities of our country, including education, economics, health care, anti-discrimination laws, and every other issue that could possibly be held dear to anyone for at least the next 8-12 years. Oh, and on a personal level? You've lost your job, and the jobs of the 30 or so people that work for you, none of whom are wealthy by any means.

What, exactly, have you gained from making that stand?

and it will sound dumb, but I acknowledge I'm not as politically astute as some. My contention is that if there had been enough NO votes, it would have delayed the ability of the President to take this country into war in Iraq.

You seem to be saying something else. Are you saying if every Dem had voted No, it still would not have been enough? For me it was more that both Dems and Repubs ought to have voted NO on the basis of principles, decency, ethics, morals, rather than voted partisan loyalties. The actual outcome of war is sending our young to combat and to their deaths and maiming, along with all the other casualties incurred on all sides in active war. The responsibility of Congress is to transcend partisan politics and Stand for something on behalf of our young troops and the horror war produces. More especially so when they have the experience, knowledge and availability of knowledge on the potential to create another Vietnam.

So explain it to me slowly and carefully, like you were explaining it to a child; What exactly would the process have needed to look like to Avoid giving President authorization to take this country to war in Iraq? You seem to be saying it was unavoidable, and I seem to be laboring under the concept that it was avoidable. What part of the process am I missing or misunderstanding?

We haven't had a "war" since World War II.

A President can take "police action" for up to 100 days for any reason he deems fit. After that, he must file a report with Congress, but there is absolutely no guidelines for what that report must actually be. It could be a one sentence report if he so desired.

In reality, the only thing that would stop a President from going to war is money, and possibly impeachment (and for that, you'd still have to prove he committed a crime, which in theory, he would not necessarily have to do). The piggy bank is the only check on a President's ability to go destroy anything he wanted.

The IWR bill was nothing more than Congress saying it approved of Bush going to war. That's it.

On edit: Also, there was no chance that every single Democrat was going to vote against the war. Hell, we can't even hold ranks on bankruptcy, much less an issue that was so politically charged as the war.

have been the scenario? I get it that President could continue action as police action within the timelines provided, but what I don't get is if no $$ to continue and sustain, wouldn't that be the end of it? I appreciate your patience in answering.

It helps me to gain greater appreciation for what would compel Congress to even consider a yes vote.

Given the status of public opinion, if every last Democrat somehow voted "no" and no money was given to the war...

Firstly, the military was fully stocked enough initially to at least start battle, probably run through most of the period before the famous "Mission Accomplished".

However, you must realize that we were losing the Senate in 2002 no matter what happened. Once 9/11 occurred, our slim majority status was timed with a stopwatch, not a calendar. Considering we only needed to lose 1 seat for our power to be stripped, only proving fully and completely that Bush himself was behind the attacks would've stopped that from happening. And THEN the funding would be passed.

If, for some inexplicable reason that Democrats DID hold on to the Senate after the 2002 elections, the specter of not supporting our troops would be enough to push funding through, and then we'd have to hold our collective breathes and pray that nothing remotely resembling WMDs would be found (which, I might add, not a single soul in this country knew with 100% certainty that there would not be.)

If WMDs WERE found and we had, as a party, tried to block Bush from "protecting the country", the party would be effectively eliminated in a very literal way. As a party leader, it is literally your job to prevent that from happening, and as such, were unwilling to take that risk.

This was a no-win scenario, no matter what anyone tells you.

to me that still reduces it to the primary need of being politically savvy on an incredibly damaging decision, holding the lives of our own young in their hands as they each voted. I am satisfied that I have better grasp of the political situation and I remain unsatisfied that on both sides the lives of our troops was reduced to political gaming.

I get it that from inside the loop the Congress made decisions for best 'damage control' yet it still seems to me that not unlike a chess game it is predicated on making a move expecting the subsequent moves to be taken. Really, what if, a collective (at least on one side) had with collective voice voted No. Isn't it remotely possible that would have changed the dynamics? Is it really possible to predict that the act itself wouldn't have had it's own impact on both the political process and the citizen's views on initiating war? Would the dominoes really have fallen as predicted?

Well, whatever, it's done now, but I would have liked to see just one time grown people stand up for something besides their loyalty to party.

And a btw, the military was NOT fully stocked to go into Iraq, far from it. Those kids went in with old Nam flak jackets, unarmored humvees (another political decision of expediency that cared not for the troops own lives), inadequacies in basic supplies and hygiene to name a few.

I contend that with it being a long-standing PNAC objective to initiate war there was more than adequate time to send those kids in with at least a minimum of necessary gear and give them a fighting chance. And with the Bush knowing where his aims were going, (back to July 2002 if not earlier DSM), there was sufficient opportunity to do a far better job of stocking the military. It is still difficult to believe that the Dem side of the aisle was oblivious to all the nuances in which politicians are famously versed to not know what was afoot long before it was presented for decision-making.
And their silence, no matter which side of the aisle, is the heart breaker for me.

Thank you for your time and explanations. I get the political picture you presented, and I just don't agree it had to go down that way at all.

Democrats didn't push the war in Iraq as their agenda. Republicans did. The lives of our troops were killed by Republicans and Republicans alone. Just because we were backed into a lose-lose situation does not place us at fault by any means.

We didn't "go along with it". (Despite all the hot air by the folks seeking to villify Democrats as doormats every opportunity they get.)

House Roll Call Vote

Senate Roll Call Vote

I'm not sure what the numbers were for the House, but I believe every single Senator who voted against the IWR held their seat in 2002 by 10 or more percentage points.

That said, I must admit Herb Kohl. Not up for re-election. Voted for the war anyway. Nobody's Senator...:eyes:

In the House, incumbency rules. That is the sole reason that an upheaval in 2006 is completely unlikely. We are likely to win a few seats back, but not much more. People know very little about their Congressmen, and tend to vote solely on name recognition and party affiliation. Name recognition is earned by being on the ballot in the past and having campaigned for at least 4 years, and party affiliation is assured by gerrymandering.

THAT is why there were more Democrats in the House voting against IWR than there were Senators.

And as far as those Senators who voted against IWR, they were in no danger of losing their seat no matter what they did. The only one who had any risk of losing his seat was Wellstone. They had a freedom that the vast majority of the rest of our party did not, including party leadership and Presidential candidates (and Kucinich, having never had any serious chance of winning in the first place, does not count).

We would have lost the Senate?

Oh, wait. That happened anyway.

It's the perception that politicians have no principles and simply vote according to the polls that is hurting us more than anything.

If the Dems had banded together, opposed the IWR, and made a joint statement roundlly condemning the rush to war, they would have looked like a party with guts.

Note that Republicans rarely break with their party. Being "ideologues" doesn't seem to hurt them, does it? No, it makes them seem "tough" and "principled."

And you think I'm the one that's insane? :eyes:

going to war in Iraq. There were huge anti-war demos around the country, each one countered by about a dozen right-wingers.

To wit: There were many demonstrations saying Terri Schiavo should've been kept alive, and yet public opinion was vastly against them.

From my own personal experience, I was working for one of the Congressmen that voted against the war resolution. It was a heavily Democratic district, and even there, we got a lot of people calling and writing in to support the war. For us, it was an easy decision to make to vote against it, but don't think for minute it was easy for everyone else.

There was a LOT of support for the war, and as evidenced by the fact that a man who lost three limbs fighting for our country, anyone who voted against the war in district or state that was not completely safe risked being voted out of office and humiliated. In 2002, it wasn't even completely safe here on DU. I think you have a vastly selective memory, because your experience differs greatly from the one I lived through.

for you to use. He caved, voted for the war based on untenable evidence and STILL freaking lost his seat.

Because he was "unpatriotic". It was believable enough that a man who lost three fucking limbs for this country was "unpatriotic". You're off your fucking rocker if you think that's not the perfect sign of the times.

dirtiest campaigns ever, one where he was linked to Hussein *despite* having voted for the IWR. And IIRC, that was also the 1st year Georgia had black box voting.

The point was that Cleland would have lost no matter what his vote was, given the other factors in his re-election campaign. So why not go out voting for principle rather than trying to out-bully the bullies? Oh, you actually thought Cleland stood a chance in hell of winning. I see.


and on edit- How about some of the blame also going to Daschle? Do you agree that it was stupid for our "leadership" to agree to schedule the freaking vote a month before the election? And don't say we had not choice- we still controlled the freaking Senate in 2002.

You don't think they bought that "dirtiest campaign ever" at least in large part BECAUSE of the overall political atmosphere? I've got a bridge to sell you if that's the case.

And if I remember correctly, the bill was being pushed with a rather large amount of urgency. Daschle maybe should have scheduled the vote later, but what would that have really mattered? People would've demanded a commitment prior to the election. And not having that commitment made, in writing as it were, you don't think the Republicans, whom ran the "dirtiest campaign ever" were capable of making people believe that Democratic commitments to vote for the war were complete lies? Even the people who were going to save their ass by voting for IWR would've been depicted as voting against it, regardless of what they really believed. These are the same people that made West Virginians believe John Kerry was going to make the Bible illegal! These are the same people that think any Democrat is going to take all their guns away! Let's be perfectly honest here - it was actually to our strategic benefit to make sure our words didn't get twisted by having a recorded vote. I'm not a Daschle fan - I don't think he should've been our majority leader, but this was a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario of epic proportions.

You worked for one of the Congressman who voted against the IWR.

"We got a lot of people calling and writing in to support the war."

Okay, now if your guy was one who could be expected to vote anti-war, wouldn't it make sense that the pro-war types would lobby him heavily and the anti-war types would assume that he was safely in their camp, and therefore would not lobby as heavily?

I can imagine the local radio wingnuts telling their flocks to "go tell that pinko commie terrorist-coddling Congressman of yours to vote to support our beloved president."

Can't you?

Yet your guy voted against the IWR, and even though, like all House members, he was up for re-election, he was still re-elected.

What does that say about the courage of the Senators?

I'd like to think he would've still voted as he did either way, but there's no guarantee of that.

and "real people" have to make "hard decisions." Like the DLC and Blue Dogs pretend that they "have" to be cons to keep their oh-so-narrow seats--and most all of them are in perfectly safe seats...

had the courage of decency to vote No. It wasn't and isn't a partisan issue for me; it was very much about human decency that would divorce itself from partisan politics. Some held onto decency, some succumbed to gaming and self-serving partisan politics. At that moment in time it was not about Dems or Repubs, it was about an opportunity to get real, be real, and be human and humane about sending our young out there to die. I am unrealistic perhaps to expect more out of the 'mature adults' elected to represent the rest of us, but hey, it's a standard I grew up with as what used to be American in my mind.

because you can't go a day here without someone saying that Democrats rubber stamped the invasion. Some did, some didn't.

edit: holy shit! I wrote "your" instead of "you're"

"lost 40 or more seats if we didn't go along"? If people vote on name recognition and party affiliation, then we aren't going to lose those House seats like you claim.

was based on being patriotic and standing behind your President. We were all still somewhat shell schocked from 9/11 and NOBODY want to dissent and break the unification of the Government back then. They would have been accused of being weak on National Defense and playing politics. Still I think they were stupid weanies.

After all, look at how he saved Max Cleland's seat for us by scheduling the IWR vote in October. :eyes:

...just so that it would be an issue right before the election. Bush could have mobilized and attacked Iraq many months sooner.

murderers who have at their disposal the infrastructure of the National Security State. Who, moreover, are getting away with the mass murder of American citizens in broad day light and using the incident as justification for significant changes to both domestic and foreign policy. One has to be willing to face the very real threat of death--whether literally or the figurative political 'death' of being made to look like a fool.

How does the saying go, when the people lead the leaders will follow?

for starters most of them only had the same information that you or I did. If the president lies to you about intelligence your kinda hosed. The intelligence committee does not get the same intelligence that the White house gets. They certainly don't when the White House is making up the intelligence. I think when the president of the united states tells you he needs power to go to war you tend to believe the president. Basically this is yet another failure of congress to do proper oversite of the white house. But the power in both houses in congress is with the Republicans not Dems. Thus the failure of oversite is on them. I don't blame the Dems for the war or the white house lies. However I think they need a unified response now for a end date to the war. We need to press for closure.

First of all, even with the information I had access to (more via the internet than through corporate owned news feeds) I seriously doubted that Iraq was a direct threat to our national security--sufficient to justify a first strike. I saw no evidence of it.

But more importantly, Senators and Congressmen and women have access to intelligence that I do not--so I don't "buy" this 'they didn't know any more than we did' crap.

They knew and we knew BUT THEY ALSO KNEW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION WAS LYING PUBLICLY AND THAT IS WHY THEY WENT ALONG WITH IT. If things went bad they could always claim that they did 'not' know BECAUSE the administration lied. This too is a lie, IMO.

did not come to you and say he had information that he knew was acurate and the he needed you to act on it. I mean you have no power to act on the information. I mean it was easy for me to protest the war. That is what I did. I did not like the way Bush was going to war. But in times of war, when a president asks for congress to trust them. Congress has almost always done so when it comes to national security. It would have been amazing had Dems not backed the president.

The Chimp's character defects were well known prior to his 2000 selection. He has never been trustworthy.

That's what he said in summer 2002, he tends to believe the President and we ought not criticize the President in a time of war.

As I posted upthread, if one couldn't tell from his time in Texas just how bad Bush was, then one probably doesn't deserve to hold elected office.

But thanks anyway for trying to make this about Dean.

Why such selective blame?

I honestly don't understand how people pick and choose facts to fit their version of reality, I really don't. Cognitive disconnect is just as rampant on DU as it is on FR.

I think right after 9/11 there was a lot of good will expressed by the Dems. And there did have a feeling in the general public that we were a unified nation in regard to our response to terrorism. In war congress generally does trust the president. He simply does have more information than they do. It's very hard to NOT trust the president of the united states. I mean Bush is untrustworthy in a way Clinton, Bush I and Reagan were not. I think it takes a long time for people to believe a president would so thoroughly abuse his trust and power. I mean it so blind sided the nation only now months after even the election is it sinking into the general population. Bush started a war to gain not safety, not freedom, but political capital. Generally to get re-elected.

You're right in saying the general public was unified after 9/11. We also had the respect of other nations. However, the PNAC puppet quickly destroyed all of that with his warmongering, lies, etc. Anyone who took a long time to believe he would so thoroughly abuse his trust and power is extremely naive or foolish. He did just that as Governor of Texas, and his other character defects were well known prior to his selection in 2000.

here after the first "Selection--Bush vs. Gore" were clued in that he and his supporters would use every trick in the book to further their agenda. September 11th made us "Sore Afraid."

They Used us and they used our Biblical history to corrupt us with their Message of "Feedom and Democracy all over the world to 'enlighten the Infidels.'" And most Americans not paying attention fell for this "NEW American Crusade."

Bush brings us back to a "dark time" in Civilizations History. I almost have to see him as a Karmic Throwback to somekind of "unenlightened time," where we all lived in caves or under rocks.

I NEVER THOUGHT I'd ever in my life see crap like this passed off as "Policy, or Christian Good Deeds." NEVER!!! It's just awful...:-(

IranContra/ BCCI crooks who were untrustworthy back then shouldn't be believed now? :sarcasm:

statement: I was wrong, the war is illegal, irresponsible and based on lies. I take responsibility also for the senseless death brought on by this war because I enabled it. I knew better but I let politics and fear of being labeled unpatriotic ruin my judgment.
Please forgive me.

ALL of the Democrats who voted for this then have them sign on to bring the troops home.

:(

fear of attack and muslim world by the people

hm/.........

not a hard one folks.

didnt have the proper information. first time in our history a president lying so obnoxiously and in face, like we have never seen before

i sat there glued to all information, getting conflicting, yet listening to powell,........and bush, and cheney saying, wtf.....man if they are lying their ass is gonna be in trouble


we cannot simply look at the past, in todays feel and say, what stupid shit would vote for this.

we have to sit in the then, and say, why.....well, when doing that, it is pretty obvious, why

86, 87 % of the nation backed bush
not everyone was that 13%

and we can talk the world. yes many thought wmd's would be found. not viable or usable, old, tired, but they would be found. confused the afraid, uninformed people

different. Our House and Senate Reps knew that not one Iraq was a hi-jacker of those planes on 9/11. So why didn't they ask the questions that WE did? Surely they had more access to the lies that were being told by the Bushies than WE did...yet from all over the informaton poured in and Bush's own administration fired people who told the truth and Bush buddy Woodward said Bush had planned to go into Iraq.

THEY KNEW...or enough new that Iraq was not repsonsible. All those on the Intelligence Panels had to know. And those were Democrats, too. Like Rockefeller and Kerry who have been around long enough to have "sources" who would have informed them what was going on with Feith, Bolton and the PNAC.

that,...>THAT is just false information. blatantly. even the fuckin repugs didnt. just cheney and the media mouths. bush siad once twice. powell wouldnt even say.

an the election was right after this vote for iraq, nov, 2002

the media, the dems were all saying how bush was rushing thru this vote to war to influence election. was said out loud.

woodward was after the vote

we would hear a piece of misrepresentation from bush, but then he had tenet come over to his side. i remember the speech. this is what senate was getting. yes they were lied too. no they didnt have more information. repugs, dems alike. they didnt know/believe bush would lie, nor the americans, so outrageously.

they didnt trust bush. but the agreement they signed did have conditions in it. so even if they were wary, they had those conditions to hold bush to. bush ignored conditions. one can suspect this, but having never experienced bush, they couldnt say for fact he would ignore.

we did not go in because of wmd's. they did not vote because of terrorists and 9/11. they voted because of being convinced of drones, tubes and mushroom clouds

I came here shortly after the initial invasion. There were PLENTY of people saying "what if they find WMD", very very few saying there aren't any, very few. Most people here thought they'd find something too.

but..... at that time, i remember, media, all ....even the republicans knew america would not go to war over wmd's. they would not get us. self interest. fuck isreal and all the others, they couldnt reach us

bushco's knew this. they had to escalate to where we were in danger. that is what they did. people werent even buying bush and cheney, it was powell sitting at u.n. that did it

I remember being up at 2:30 a.m. with probably 50 other DU'ers sending E-Mails to the UN begging them to stop this war...and our e-mails to the French and German ambassadors kept getting bounced back...it was awful...we really believed the UN could stop the Invasion....and Move On.org had thousands and thousands of signatures which they presented to the United Nations in Boxes! We all signed thousands of us.

We protested and so many DU'ers posted photographs of the signs and that was BEFORE the invasion.

I remember it very differently from you. I remember being here with incredible people with so much energy trying every way we could to get the information out....STOP IRAQ INVASION! Will Pitt/Matcom ....everyone was out protesting or writing letters/phoning e-mailing.

It was an incredible time.

i wasnt here, unfortunately. but ..... i was on a couple other boards and we talked about all tis. watched the world demonstrations. was an amazing time. the rallies, world rallies,.....are what convinced me. regardless of what was being said, the whole world is not wrong to a handful of people in this nation wanting war. much information on the net, was NOT on tv. people were on the net even less than they are now. look at all that dont know what is happening now, because they watch news, and not go on the net. dems, our elected officials, werent on the net. they hadnt even watched moore f9/11 yet. they didnt know so much of that shit. i think conyers being on f9/11 is what got him motivated. the absurdity of what got by them

you saw

but that is not what was happening in the majority of the nation.

you saw

but did you see what was happening outside of your world

people were convinced of bush illusions. many many still are. some no longer are. so much has become clear in the last couple years for a lot of people

with maybe 25 people every weekend in the lead up to the Invasion we had cat calls, folks showing us "the finger" yelling "why don't you get a job" and yet we had many more folks who "Honked for Peace" and giving us the "thumbs up." I wondered why all those who "Honked" couldn't have come out and held a sign but I realized they were afraid for their jobs or that their neighbors would see them.

That was the hardest part. Feeling so alone. But, here on DU there was tremendous support. That's what kept me and many others going.

But, I understand what you saw about the Average American...I just don't understand why so many of our Dems in the Senate and some in the House voted to go in anyway. They say they thought Bush would do the right thing and go back to the UN but already they knew what he did in Florida so how could they think that he would abide by anything they signed?

And, Senator Robert Byrd knew and stood for days on the Senate Floor telling them that if they signed that Resolution they would be giving up all oversight by the Congress for any inteventions Bush ever wanted to do. He said "We may as well hang up a sign here in the Senate..'Gone Fishing' because we won't have any jobs left to do." Also Senator Kennedy argued against the IRW along with Senator Byrd.

They didn't listen. I can't forgive Kerry and Edwards for not listening. I thought it was political...that they were running for President but look where it got them. Bush is still there and one of them is no longer in the Senate. All because of Poltical aspirations...?

forgive.

i just dont walk life this way. i see kerry doing good things, i applaud. when i see someone get something, and accomplish something i applaud

this whole forgive thing......not how i do life

we are merely people, good and bad, in all our imperfection

i think this attitude is counterproductive for the democratic party. i think it is making our work harder, and it is already hard enough.

in the last election...so did some of those who protested. I just can't forgive them for that vote on IWR, given that they had to know. Certainly Edwards knew because we sent him the information. That's what's so disappointing. I imagine Boston folks sent Kerry the same information we all had. With the DSM's release it just brings it all back so clearly. How could they have voted that way.

Otherwise I'm okay with both of them.

there is a lot of blanket statements going on. but i can certainly respect your not being able to accept this vote. as you state. i better understand. thank you

it means alot, really. :-)'s Even if we differ on a few hairlines of thought...nice of you to reply...

had manipulated that vote in such a way, it was about forcing our people to vote along with them. i was more angry at the people that had set that vote up, and the media that allowed that set up, than the democrats.

As I recall, the majority of us were against the war because we were informed about the facts.

and for verifying what your experience was along with what I remember.

:-)'s to you ...thanks!

Because AFTER the invasion, I remember almost everybody in a panic about what to say if/when they found the WMD.

to the looting, to the contractors taking over companies, to lost moneys. ...... ushco made poor decisions in his handling and execution of this war. he would be fired, if he was running a company. no one could say for fact these men would be so inept,....except in hindsite

knowing bush's failure in all things
running this war out of greed, ergo, poorest decision in all things. never what is best for iraq, or what would help iraq the most. always, what would our companies get. with that attitude, there is not a chance of hell at success

the moment the initial conquest of Iraq turned into a cakewalk.

After all, if you had WMD, wouldn't the time to use them be the time when you were losing a war and desperately throwing everything you had at the invaders?

I'm pretty sure that the Busheviks knew it, too, or else they wouldn't have invaded.

There were SO no WMDs that the Bushbots didn't even plant them.

and we were wondering where and how they would do it...

Good quote from you:

"After all, if you had WMD, wouldn't the time to use them be the time when you were losing a war and desperately throwing everything you had at the invaders?

I'm pretty sure that the Busheviks knew it, too, or else they wouldn't have invaded."

in Congress and even a few republicans were still able to vote against the IWR. Explain that. Certainly not a Profiles in Courage moment for those who voted aye.


Regardless, we shouldn't have even had to deal with the full vote before the election, and wouldn't have had to except that we had one of THE most ineffective Majority "Leaders" of all time, Daschle. He and the others who thought it was a good idea to cave and schedule the vote need to have their heads examined.

75-80% of Americans opposing it (even the ones saying Schiavo should've been kept on). Doubtless the remaining 20-25% are those that always call for Muslims to register their addresses and jobs with the feds, and those are the people we HAVE to court, or something like that.

Sure, I'd expect the rethugs to vote yes but Dems????

I want to call/email every Dem who voted AYE and chew them out.

WTF are they thinking???? THEY'RE A HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM

I.simply.don't.get.it

I am furious
:mad: :grr:

its a historical fact - much like a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, congress will authorize the president in any military action. i do not believe there is one instance in our history of congress voting against war.

every democrat who voted yes did so for one of 2 reasons:
1. they're a fucking idiot & believed the bush admin's lies.
2. they were covering their ass so they could get re-elected.

"they were covering their ass so they could get re-elected."

When a majority of people are now opposed to the war? If they continue to support the Iraq war who do they think will re-elect them? Will they be trying to win all of the pro-war votes away from Republicans in 2006 while ignoring the anti-war majority? That's not a very smart strategy at all.

And I doubt very much that they believed the Bush governments lies on Iraq. I didn't. Did you?

When Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam war the war ended and all of our troops were brought home.

I THOUGHT most people in this country are opposed to the war.

So why...?? :shrug:

but when they voted to authorize, opposing the war was a principled, unpopular stand. do you not remember the wave of jingoism that swept (and always sweeps) america?

up to bush's re-election, flat-out opposing the war was a risky proposition for all but the most secure liberal seats.

now they're trapped into approving funds or they "don't support the troops". more like they don't support south african private miltary contractors.

congress is craven. it always has been. isn't that why we despise Biden & Leiberman? craven failure to take a principled stand? favoring compromise & political survival over Jeffersonian principles? and, despite recieving my vote, my senators Murray & Cantwell are craven also. I'd rather have a fire-breathing Green in there, kicking ass & making so much noise that the MSM cannot ignore him/her.

since the Vietnam era, as well as around the world.

What exactly were Feinstein, Clinton, Kerry, and the other sellouts, especially those from liberal states, "risking"?

i don't want to be the apologist. i thought they were craven, unprinciple weasels at the time. bush et al were obviously lying & had no idea what can of worms they were opening. we already had the afgani can open, and the shiites had hardened their hearts against us after we abandoned them in the first gulf war.

after 9-11, congress obviously thought they needed to stand with bush no matter what. and it sunk kerry in 04.

In the form of political donations. And even worse in DiFi's case, money in her husband's pockets.

It still wasn't right for Cleland to vote for the IWR, but it was wholly expected given that he represented Georgia. But Kerry? In Massachusetts?!! Feinstein? Clinton? Schumer? Yeah, they have quite a bit of explaining to do even today.

:evilfrown:

You don't have to believe that if you don't want to, but I was in a citizen's peace lobby at the time, and after that happenned a lot of Dem senators wouldn't even talk to us.

Interesting factoid: the security people I talked to firmly believe the Bush admin sent the anthrax. They most likely ain't the only ones, but they are unimportant enough to be able to say it out loud.

The Dems who were up for election were told that they would lose if they voted against the IWR. Wellstone did it anyway, and his poll numbers went UP 6 points.

He couldn't be allowed to get away with that.

I hate the feeling that my country is being run by some country club Mafia.

post 14

Sometimes I think I'm the only person who remembers what 2002 was like around here.

No, war supporters did not care whether Bush employed halftruths or empty promises.

Yes, war opponents were seen as niggling about technical details and seen as talking about a prolonged occupation and prolonged war. But the "plan" being talked about was a war more or less imagined to resemble the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982- zip in against little resistance, smoke out the Evil Dictator, and withdraw while leaving an occupation force and a puppet government and middling level of chaos behind.

I think everyone saw that the Bush people were conducting an operation that wasn't deeply planned out in the aspects that bored them. They were convinced that massive superiority in firepower and enough money thrown around as bribes was going to settle all problems. (Hey, it worked in Afghanistan...sort of.)

What war opponents forget is that we had 10 years of 'low intensity' warfare with Iraq that preceded this third and final act. Iraq was a thorn in the flesh of American pride, specifically the conservatives' mythology of themselves and this country.

The national polling was clear: 30% opposition, pretty much all hardline Democrats. There was 70% support- all moderate Democrats, Indies, and Republicans. As a Democratic politician you had to decide which was the more important constituency on the votes involved - your own party's liberal hardliners, or your own party's moderates and Indies.

Plus, it made no difference on the outcome which way you voted- Bush had all Republicans and a lot of moderate Democrats in Congress on board from the start, he was going to have a majority.

So it was ultimately a gamble- not on the evidence or detail, just on whether Bush would succeed well enough for long enough. Well, on Election Day Bush had 54% of the country thinking, or at least hoping, he did.

Assuming that the intel was cooked deep within the intelligence community superstructure, the information that congress was getting was probably heavily skewed to show evidence that Iraq indeed had weapons, or at the very least a capability.

In addition, there were several people in the * administration that were testifying that the war would be short lived (Rummy saying it would last no longer than six months), low risk and inexpensive (I believe Wolfowitz testified that the costs of war could be largely paid for by Iraqi oil).

Couple that with the public's general support for the war and you have a situation where Dems would take a big political risk in voting against. They were also giving * the benefit of the doubt, which was obviously a huge mistake.

No, I don't completely blame the Dems on this one...I believe they were duped as much as the American people were, and therein lies the HIGH CRIMES...

...the "election" was nothing but a show put on by the NeoCon Junta to convince most Americans that voting was both free and fair.

National "polling" was then, and is currently conducted by organizations that are owned by supporters of the NeoCons.

And no, I don't think enough people envisioned just how poorly planned the Iraq invasion really was. Based on the 12 years of sanctions and the poor condition of the Iraqi military, the NeoCons thought that the Iraqi campaign would be over very quickly. And when it did not go according to plan, they tried to lie about it with Herr Busch's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

And no, I don't consider continuing to take casualties in Afghanistan as "sort of" working. The only thing that seems to be working well for the NeoCons in the "Forgotten War" is the almost complete lack of news reporting.

IMHO, a large number of Democrats in Congress were intimidated by the NeoCons into supporting NeoCon policies and plans. They knew that the only people who got anthrax through the mail were Democrats. The "don't get out of line" handwriting was on the wall for all to see.

Congess was, for the most part, convinced by the OSP-altered intelligence estimates that Iraq had WMDs, and that Iraq supported Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Thanks to the DSM, we now know for a fact that those false claims were used by the NeoCons to stampede Americans into supporting a war that should never have been started.

Just to name a few off the top of my head. A majority of people in Massachusetts, New York and California opposed the war even in October 2002. Kennedy voted no, so why not Kerry? Boxer voted no, so why not DiFi? And wtf happened with BOTH senators from New York?

None of those 4 really faced any repercussions from their constituencies, given the mood of their respective states then (and of course now it would be even better for them). So what exactly is their excuse? What exactly were they risking if they voted no ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY OF DEMS IN CONGRESS?

I live in Massachusetts. Polling here was roughly 60-65% in favor of invasion and toppling Hussein at its peak. New York and California didn't have majorities for opposition either. I thought Kerry should have abstained from voting on the IWR, under the circumstances. I suspect he decided he had to vote the way moderate Democrats and Independents in the swing states were going. He didn't want there to be a wedge or sense of strong difference whichever way the Iraq affair turned out.

I'm not sure you get to see or hear much in detail about Jewish voters where you are. Iraq was a matter of great internal dispute (well, many things are) and a lot of people who are liberal in social and economic policy and the Democratic Party's best supporters in a general way went over to supporting invasion etc. as in the best interests of Israeli society. There's some amount of manipulation by Israeli elites involved, but most of it goes back to what seems to outsiders a paranoid and tribal view of Jewish history that is an internal tradition, along with an ignorant assessment of Arab societies and their contemporary situation of far more extreme strain and juxaposition between essentially medieval social forms and practices and thought and those of Modernity than in the West.

If you look among Jewish American Congressfolk and those with large Jewish constituencies, voting for the IWR was the norm. Barbara Boxer was one of the exceptions.

What you're ignoring is that there was merit to finally settling this endless slap-fest with Iraq and Hussein. Iraq was a major problem Clinton was unable to settle during his eight years in office. Since giving Hussein the victory after fighting a war won on the ground wasn't an option, toppling him or getting him to submit was a permanent agenda item in Washington for 10 years.

Along comes Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 and wants to do it, and gets a loud majority to demand it and consent to doing it, the simplistic and dumb way. Lies aplenty in the process. But the job of subduing Hussein has to get done sometime by someone, otherwise U.S. power is toothless and the Kuwait war result pissed away.

If the dilemma involved for Democrats hadn't been difficult, they wouldn't have agonized over it for so long. They wouldn't have split.

Let's keep attacking Democrats instead of Bush. That's worked so well so far. As if the reason for that vote hadn't been explained ad nauseum. Get Bush or harp the vote to death, your choice lefties.

i mean, i have had enough of this shit. fuccckkkkk.......

"Let's keep attacking Democrats instead of Bush."

Do you want us to applaud those Democratic Party leaders who support Bush's Iraq policy, appointments and legislative agenda?

I've read enough of your posts that it's clear to me that you're the kind of person who would allow 10,000 people to die in a forest fire over the principle of not building a new road. You live in the same kind of black and white world as fundies, it's just that your white is their black, and vice versa.

if there were no road? :shrug:

n/t

I have wondered myself. Could they not know about PNAC and their plans and everything with that?

Some supported the 1998 bombings, and were worried about looking like flip-floppers.

Some genuinely wanted Saddam gone and probably believed Bush.

Some of them may have just given Bush the benifit of the doubt and took him on his word.

Some of them were up for re-election and didn't want to be painted as unpatriotic or unwilling to defend America.



Whatever the reason, though, the common thread seems to be that they lacked the courage to stand up for what's right.

They believed the intelligence that turned out to be a pack of lies.

THEY were lied to; WE were lied to; the WHOLE COUNTRY was lied to...

I don't understand the "moral dilemma" created when some individuals (i,e, Republicans) try to reframe the Iraq War as "everybody's problem" because Democrats (as well as Republicans) voted "to go to war." Democrats who did so should simply say, "But now I know Bush lied about the reasons for going to war..." No "moral dilemma," even if we ALL knew Bush was lying. Who's to say we knew? The GOP? Are they going to say, "Well, you knew Bush was lying but voted for the war anyway." They would then be admitting that they knew Bush lied, too!

I see very few Democrats standing up to corporations and against war and for the people.

Under Bill Clinton, did we see a real struggle against war, poverty, environmental degradation, and for global justice?

No.

Only a few Democrats are brave enough to stand against war.

...recepients of anthrax were leading Democrats. That message was loud and clear, IMHO. They also knew that the NeoCons were utterly ruthless and willing to do anything to achieve their objectives.

And by the way, weren't the Dems outvoted by the GOP in both houses of Congress? Aren't there some Dems in Congress who might as well be Republicans based on their voting records? Hasn't that been the case for quite some time?

And no, the Senate Intelligence Committee did NOT know any more than what they were fed by the OSP-doctored intelligence estimates.

And finally, it can be clearly proven that the NeoCons lied about virtually everything to get the support needed to attack Iraq. There were NO WMDs; there was NO connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda; there were NO mass graves of the size discussed before the invasion; and Iraq was NOT a danger to her neighboring states and/or Israel. That is the "out" for Democrats, as well as some Republicans, for having supported going to war in Iraq. We are already seeing this take place.

And finally, what is the point in yet another post attacking Democrats for supporting an attack on Iraq? The only way we're going to get rid of the NeoCons is buy presenting a solidified front along with those Republicans willing to admit that they were also duped.

And some Senatecleaning too.

A DINO is a DINO is a DINO......

Only a brave few, like Kucinich, for example, are truly on our side of things in this government.

The rest are doing almost nothing to challenge the rampant militarism/corporatism that is ruling our nation.

and certainly old enough to have in their experience Vietnam.

Appreciated reading thru the comments. Me, at that time, in same boat with rest of the country had reasoning that we'll likely go into Afghanistan; Osama Bin Laden identified (btw, who identified this and how could they know so quickly after the fact and not before?) as responsible for 911. Already suspicious of the accounting as to who was responsible for 911.

Iraq next. No way. Nothing to do with 911 and clear enough case was not made, much amazing apprehensive fear was promoted, enough so that I thought we might truly have just entered the twilight zone for real.

Huge disappointment in the votes; aside from partisan politics and what is good for jockeying position was my expectation that Adults would think, respond, react like adults and Not take our country into another specious war action. Like who among them was not old enough to remember Vietnam and essentially, what was the hurry? They could have acted to delay the action for need of more information and investigation and I'm sure Bush would have continued to push for his intention to go to war.

There was NO reason to Hurry on the vote, and a larger # of NOs would have had the effect of at least delaying until reason and sanity could be returned. They voted what was politically expedient for their own well-being at the knowing expense of expendable young lives sending our troops to combat in Iraq.


I'm impressed with the Adults who had the courage to vote No. I'm not impressed with the partisan children who voted yes. And it took me a long while to get on board with Kerry who voted yes and knew better ...

To advance their political ambitions. Now they continue to fund the slaughter for the same reasons.

That applies to every single member of Congress that voted for the war. Every one off us knew it was bogus, there's no reason a member of Congress wouldn't have access to the info we had. Going to war is a huge decision not to be taken likely, or to be made merely on the basis of what will be the best way to keep your goddamn congressional seat. Shame on the "democrats" who voted for this filthy invasion, ESPECIALLY Kerry and Clinton, whose constituents were OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to the war.

This is why I, like Mike Malloy, can no longer call myself a democrat.

Without a living constitution there is no United States of America.

and joined the Green Party is that I realized that the majority of the Dem Party no longer represented me and millions like me in the Middle Class, The Working Poor and the Poor.

The only thing Dems that are progressive can do now is to keep speaking out, LOUDLY about the issues that concern them and force the Dem Party to represent them and not Corps.

The issue of Iraq is plain to me. It's Imperialism. Dems that voted for the IWR need to admit that they screwed up and stop supporting the Occupation. Will they do that? I doubt that most will do that. Most are go along to get along people. They put up their finger to see which way the wind is blowing or take polls.

If all progressive Dems would join the Green Party just maybe the Greens could gain a Nattl. platform. It's always Catch22 though. People keep saying but the Greens are marginal. Yeah, they will continue to be so as long as progressives don't join them, eh?

The trouble is, the congress critters were not smart enough to see through the pack of neocon lies, like you and I did! Congress was far more afraid of being called "Unpatriotic"(a black sheeple)than they were worried about doing the right things, or the smart things! Stampeded and Hornswoggled by the 9/11 blow-back and the Reich wing propaganda machine's all out war dance since 9/11. The American people should be very upset with the neocons and their enablers who made up and presented these lies to us all, as facts!(Imminent Threats, Yellow Cakes, Death Drones Offshore, rape rooms, mass graves, rose petals, cost free war because of the Iraqi oil, and so on)

The Reich wingers like to add fuel to the fire, by hinting that the democrats are just as guilty as the administration is, because the democrats went along with Bush and the GOPers lies. Anything to try and create more division among us. We know now that Bush stood there in front of every citizen and every lawmaker in America, during his pre-war SOTU speech and lied over and over and over, but still we blame our guys, instead of KKKarl and Bush? Sometimes it's hard to see what is really going on when every "FACT" that you get from the Reich is so damned twisted!

When and if the shit REALLY does hit the fan in this country, due to an attack from the outside, Americans won't know whether to shit or wind their watches, because the Reich Wing has lied so much now, that nobody believes them! Too many politically friendly Terra Lerts make Jack a dull boy!

Saddam "may" and "might" and "could possibly". I'm not kidding.

If they can't read English, they shouldn't be in Congress.

Diane tried this excuse on me. She's full of it. If she and others like her were "lied to" it's because they didn't want to know the truth that was out there in plain sight.

BushCo timed the talk of invasion with the 2002 elections, and nobody wanted to seem "soft on terror" especially if they were up for reelection. The DSM confirm this, btw.

to steal other people's resources and they like the idea of world supremacy. You don't exactly see many of them coming out and discussing the illegal war, do you. They are for it.

are more intranced with their personal image than spending their time educating themselves about what is transpiring around them. Statesmen they are not. Popularity and retaining their little power seats is the primary goal.

And none of 'em have a son within a thousand miles of an angry enemy with a weapon.

n/t

Lieberman, Kerry, and Gephardt knew that they could vote for IWR and still get the Dem nod in 2004.

I very much enjoyed reading this thread this morning and the many posts in it.

I think that the intial and very good question that you posed and the answer given by The Nation which you provided sadly pretty much sums it all up:

"How are our Dems who supported it going to come to grips that Bush should be impeached for lies when they were complicit? The Nation Magazine has an article saying they will never impeach because they were complicit."

IWR, have been corrupted by corporate campaign contributions. They couldn't say no.