Out of the 296 votes for war in congress, how many were Dem?

I am trying to google up a list, but I am having no luck. Anyone have a list? Thanks!

they need to be forgiven because of what happened then or what was HAPPENING then.

would like to know how many.

President Bush explicitly promised that it wasn't a vote for war, in speeches during the run-up to the vote. Numerous Democrats who voted Yes made floor statements making clear that they were not voting for war, except as a last resort, after the President had exhausted all other options.

Afterwards, Republican spinners got to work trying to convince everyone that Congress had "voted for war" -- dumping all Bush's promises down the Memory Hole.

I wish Democrats wouldn't help them in their efforts to re-write history.

that Dems didn't know that Bush was fired up for war. How anyone could trust his judgement it beyond me.

It was obvious that, if Bush got the IWR, he would invade Iraq. Simply obvious. How is it that we could see that, but our alleged representatives couldn't?

My not-very-comforting answer: They could see it just as well as we could. But an election was coming up, and they feared that, if the war went well, a "no" vote would be used against them down the road. ("And Senator Whatshisname was against liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam, and against our defending ourselves against terrorism!") So, they figured it was better to sacrifice tens of thousands of Iraqi lives than their own political career.

Of course, when things turned out not to go as well as planned, it's easy to place the blame on the Bushies. And, indeed, I think that many of those supporting IWR made a point of putting in a little pre-emptive CYA by stating, just after the vote, that they weren't giving Bush a blank check, even though a quick read of the IWR makes it crystal-clear that that is precisely what it was.

But we shouldn't be fooled: our congresspeople are not stupid. They knew that a vote for the IWR amounted to guaranteeing war. They just didn't feel opposition was worth the political risk. (And you wonder why, even now, polls show Republicans hold an advantage in "leadership"...?)

:grr:

That's the problem with all these arguments. It always comes down to giving Bush a free pass for lying through his teeth and blaming the Democrats who thought that they could actually vote as if the President of the United States would stand by his word. It's like blaming abuse victims -- "If you hadn't burned dinner, he wouldn't have beaten you half to death." How's about we peg the blame where it belongs -- on President Bush, who made very clear promises and broke his word? How's about we *don't* let the Republicans spin Bush's promises away with you-should've-known-the-President-was-a-liar?

There was NO reason to invade Iraq even if Saddam had WMD.

She was talking about this yesterday, I remember correctly, most congress Dem's didn't vote for it. She may have the list. I also know that, 23 dems senator voted yes. It looks like 1/2 of Dem's Senator voted for it.

I'm not sure, so I'll look it up

After B*sh had pulled it on 10/1 for 92 Senators?

The Associated Press

The 77-23 roll call by which the Senate voted Friday to authorize President Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq.



On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to pass the resolution and a "no" vote was a vote to defeat it.

Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one independent.


Democrats Yes

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Breaux, La.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carnahan, Mo.; Carper, Del.; Cleland, Ga.; Clinton, N.Y.; Daschle, S.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Edwards, N.C.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Miller, Ga.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Schumer, N.Y.; Torricelli, N.J.

Democrats No

Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone, Minn.; Wyden, Ore.

Republicans Yes

Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Campbell, Colo.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeWine, Ohio; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Fitzgerald, Ill.; Frist, Tenn.; Gramm, Texas; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, France; Hatch, Utah; Helms, N.C.; Hutchinson, Ark.; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, N.H.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Thomas, Wyo.; Thompson, Tenn.; Thurmond, S.C.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No

Chafee, R.I.;

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.

link that breaks it down.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3202&sort=party

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Doesn't this just get more and more amusing? How many times has this issue been dealt with... and what does it actually prove?

That Bush blackmailed Congress...

The voted on a resolution to give a leader the right to pressure the UN and go to war if and only if their intelligence was proved to be legit. That never happened and Bush struck even though reports were coming back clearing Sadam of having any WMD's.

The intelligence itself was faked... we know that now. But at the time, to have resisted the intel they were given, with an imminent threat on the table, would have possibly been a fatal mistake. So now people want to spread the bame to do what exactly?

To give Bush a pass on Lying us into an illegal war.

a pre-emptive war illegally. Even if Saddam had WMD it was still not enough reason to invade.

They voted to cover their sorry asses and they and their apologists are trying to wash the blood off their hands by using the "Duh" defense.

Which makes me wonder if the Left has what it takes to exert the kind of pressure needed to end this war.

I don't appreciate being called a loyalist and being accused of washing blood from my hands. You know nothing about me, and your accusation is unfounded.

Trying to make me agree with your point of view by accusing those who don't agree with your perspective on why people voted to give this bastard the authorities he abused, doesn't sit well with me at all. You have proof that all Congress knew this intel was bullshit?

Even if Saddam had WMD (as does a whole list of countries with the good ol' USA leading the pack) that is NOT reason to go to war, or authorize it.

They collaborated with Bush to send troops to a sovereign country which posed no threat to the United States. It's kind of like saying "I gave the guy a gun to rob a bank, but only if it had money in it. It's not my fault that he robbed the bank. He told me there was money it."

and all the rest of that fantasy arsenal, then I would say we should've blown him to kingdom come. Because then Saddam would've been a serious danger, and in violation of umpteen UN resolutions, and we should've taken him out.

Most of us agree that the fact that he *didn't* have weapons, and Bush knew it, is what makes the war illegal and immoral. You're adding another spin -- that you would've been happy to let Saddam sit on a pile of WMDs. I don't know how many people will go along with you. I wouldn't.

How about Israel? It's in a dangerous and volatile part of the world and makes little secret that it will use nukes to "defend" itself.

How about Pakistan? It has already threatened to use nukes, as has India.

Or, how about the United States? Not only has it threatened use of nukes on many occasions, it has the means to do so, and is the only nation to ever have done so?

A lot of people "let" the Soviet Union "sit on a pile of WMDs" when it was a real threat and somehow, we survived without invading.

In reality, Iraq had much more "legitimate" reasons to launch a preempitive war against us. We had been bombing them for years. We engineered sanctions against them which killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens. We had invaded their country to protect a client state of ours. And, we had troops on their border with the obvious intent of invading.

That Saddam "ignored" UN resolution is hardly unique. Should we invade Israel for the same reason? Should we be invaded for our embargo of Cuba which 284 member states of the UN condemn?

May I remind you that Saddam didn't threaten us with invasion? Didn't threaten us with WMD? In fact, all that he did do, was to defy our commands to relinquish power and become another client state.

Iran, no. But I'm not an expert on Iran. As for North Korea, it would depend on whether we could do it without getting South Korea or Japan nuked, and how bad the civilian deaths among the North Koreans would be, and whether we'd end up in a war with China. But if we could do it relatively painlessly -- not like what's happening in Iraq -- then I think a case could be made. Unlikely that we *could* topple Kim Jong Il without terrible repercussions, however.

No one here is giving this messianic militarist a pass, but those of us who aren't party loyalists are just a bit miffed that a number of prominent Democrats--who are quite well versed in matters of Empire--stabbed us in the back.

Oh, and the ramifications for voting against the war were hardly "fatal". Fatal is the kind of word used when a bunch of Iraqi tots are shredded by our cluster bombs--bombs splayed with the signatures of my two craven senators, Clinton and Schumer.

Aha...

Those who swear absolute fealty to political organizations, truth and justice be damned.

you calling me a party loyalist?

How else could one ascribe nobility and duty to an act which so many of us proles--who had nothing but a fair understanding of recent history--saw as an affront to morality?

On edit: Added "vote" in subject line, since no one in their right mind would defend the resolution itself.

Democrats opposed the measure by a margin of 126-81. Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont also voted no.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/oct02/86834.asp?format=print

Here are a few snippets:

Over the misgivings of many Democrats, Congress voted by large margins Thursday and early Friday to give President Bush the power and military mandate he asked for against Saddam Hussein.

After the House vote, Bush hailed the outcome, saying it "sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: It must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions or it will be forced to comply."

. . .

Democrats opposed the measure by a margin of 126-81.

In a 296-133 vote Thursday, House members approved a resolution that empowers the president to use U.S. forces against Iraq - either in concert with the international community, or alone if Bush deems it necessary to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Before choking up with emotion on the House floor, outgoing GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas addressed himself to Bush, saying Congress was placing the lives of American soldiers in his hands and handing him "a great trust."

. . .

Voting was preceded by several days of occasionally emotional but suspense-free debate, with the outcome forecast weeks in advance. Supporters said broad authority was needed to strengthen Bush's hand in pressuring the Security Council to act and Iraq to disarm. Opponents called the resolution a "blank check" and argued that any U.S. action against Hussein should be in conjunction with the U.N. and allies, not unilateral.

. . .

The resolution that won approval encourages Bush to work with the U.N. Security Council to enforce that body's own resolutions dealing with Iraq's weapons programs, human rights abuses and other conduct.

But it also authorizes him to use force "as he determines it to be necessary and appropriate" to defend national security and enforce "all relevant" Security Council resolutions.

Should the president exercise that authority, he is required to make a determination to Congress that diplomatic efforts have been exhausted and that any action is consistent with prosecuting the war on terrorism.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/oct02/86834.asp?format=print

thomas.loc.gov for the vote. what was it? Oct 12, 2003?