Are you willing to "Forgive and Forget" those Dems who supported war?

I am.

Now that more pro-war Democrats are turning against the war openly, I believe it's best for many reasons for us to move on, in terms of letting bygones be bygones. If we can get beyond what happened with Iraq, it would increase our chances to unify in a larger sense and boot the real bastids out. (I.e. the GOP)

I'm talking about those Democrats like Edwards who acknowledge they were misled and misinterpreted the basis for war. And/or those who actually believed Bush would actually try to reach a settlement through inspections and other non-military means.

I won't even hold it against those who have an honestly held view that we have to at least reach some degree of positive resolution or phase out withdrawal, rather than immediately leave now. We do owe it to the Iraqi people to at least do something to fix what we broke, and not leave them in the lurch...As long as it is attached to a real tangible plan to get out ASAP.

The only caveat is that the Dems acknowledge that this was a trumped up war based on false pretenses.And that it should not have happened. And fight the right on that basis.

I will still find it hard to abide Democrats who still justify the war or otherwise enable the Repubs and the media to continue to let the administration off the hook.

It would also be helpful if some form of recognition or apology was made by those who tried to marginalize peopeo like Dean and Kucinich and otehr anti-war Democratic politicians and the millions of other people who argued against this war clearly.....But that's not a deal breaker for me.

How about you?

I believe they did what they did for political expediency, because they were afraid of the consequences of not going along with bush. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I tend to be a little unforgiving about such serious matters.

This question may may offend some people here, but I figure there's no harm in asking.

Is it automatically wrong for a politician to do something for "political expediency"?

For example: If a US Senator or Congressperson sees the writing on the wall that their single vote is not going to change the final outcome, is it always wrong for that legislator to go against their "principles" and do the "politically expedient" thing?

This begs the related question, if a US Senator or Congressperson sees the writing on the wall that their single vote is not going to change the final outcome, is it always right for them to vote the "principled" way even if it is not "politically expedient"?

If they lose the next election because of their "principled" vote that had no impact on the final outcome, and are replaced by a conservative Republican, does that factor into the equation?

Ultimately, I guess what I'm getting at: Is it reasonable to expect politicians to not act like politicians? I think it is fairly obvious that the successful ones are extremely adept at balancing "principle" and "politics."

There is a spectrum of which there will be the need to strategically be politically expedient. When the lives of people are placed in jeopardy because of the political cowardice of politicians, excusing the poor behavior becomes enabling it again for the future in similar circumstances.

When people's lives are on the line based on a decision is the time for the utmost in courage.

Without courage none of the other values can be practiced. M. Angelou

ack: spelled it right the first time...

I am fairly certain that the IWR vote in the Senate was not 51-50. So a single vote in this case did not necessarily equal death. A single member's vote would not have changed the final outcome.

The Democrats that voted for it understood the ramifications. Your original question (paraphrased) was whether to be angry with those who voted out of political expedience.

This was far too large of an issue for political expedience to be the largest component of the aye vote for the IWR. The results of that vote meant people were going to die. That is why this question will be one riven with great emotion and be a political nightmare to discuss rationally for some time to come. Those that can forgive, should do so and will. But forgetting is not optional. Those who do not know there history are doomed to repeat it, so they say.

My original question was whether it is automatically wrong for a politician to do something for "political expediency".

Of course, in context of this thread, you are right to assume that my ultimate point is to explore whether it is wrong for a politician to vote for IWR out of political expediency.

You are talking about "that vote" in terms of the final outcome. That vote did in fact mean that people were going to die. But I am asking about a single vote from a single politician. If IWR passed by a fair margin with bi-partisan votes, is it automatically wrong for a politician to make a political calculation that would not change the final outcome?

important is readily understandable. Happens all the time and on a range of issues. The fundamental basis of building voting blocs and coalitions.

On something that determines the fate of our nation, it is better to stand on principle in a valiant effort to be heard and seen doing the right thing on behalf of the People. History is unforgiving in that regard and no question this was a historic vote. Political calculation based on either personal/political ambition has a heavy burden to bear and a price to be paid. The country paid in blood & treasure while the politicians are now viewed through the political filter that was the IWR vote. The value of political expediency on that particular vote is proving mighty costly.

This feels like the roller coaster of battered wife syndrome.

"I am sooo sorry, honey, I will never...(insert crime here) do that again." Please forgive me (three years later).

This war has affected the lives of MILLIONS of people here and around the world, whether they be American soldiers, friends or relatives of soldiers, other soldiers from the "Coalition", citizens of Iraq or rebels of Iraq, citizens of Britian or those in the US that had funding cut from social programs because the $$$$$$$$$ went to fund the war.

That vote was the MOST SERIOUS vote of their lives and those that voted YES blew it big time.

... I think their votes were based on how they thought it would play out come the next election.

You make some very good points and I'm not so naive as to think that politicians aren't going to act like politicians 99 percent of the time, but there was so very much at stake here. It seems to me they failed to consider the very real risk of the outcome such as we are facing now in Iraq, or, if they did consider it, somehow it did not weigh as heavily on their mind as the risk of being voted out of office if the invasion and subsequent events had a positive ending. They were hoping for "all's well that ends well." That isn't good enough for me.

One more thing: how in the world any of them could take george w. bush at his word is absolutely beyond my comprehension. Nobody on DU needs a reiteration of all the reasons why bush had already by that point proved himself completely incompetent and untrustworthy.

Quite the reverse.

A politician has a duty to try and achieve the best possible outcome for their country, by whatever means necessary. Having principles only matters in so far as you can succesfully get them made into law.

Sticking strictly to ones principles whatever the effect on one's chances of reelection enables a politician to feel smugly self-righteous, but makes the country a worse place.

Compromising when necessary to achieve more good on the long-term results in being called all sorts of names by people who don't have a responsibility to win elections, but makes it a better one.

Not many politicians can afford being principled all the time. The famous Milgram experiments showed how easily people can be manipulated into going along with the crowd to to horrendous things, and also how just one person saying "No" can often bring the crowd followers around. I don't see too many politicians as potential Milgram voices in the wilderness.

So, yes, I can forgive. Forget? Not bloody likely!

When it's a matter of life and death for a few thousand Americans and 100,000 or so Iraqis, then it is unforgivable.

Many Dems cowered in the corner on this and now they will pay a political price. Sometimes the people pull their heads out of their asses and do a little of their own "politically expedient" stuff. Such as kicking sell-outs out of office.

I truly believe many cowered in the face of the right wing noise machine, in hopes that they might be spared the full frontal attacks. Did it work? No. Will they ever learn? No. Do they deserve to represent us? No.

Julie

much of a position to something other than accept their apology about being duped by BushCo.

They betrayed their country for political expediency-- they'll do it again at the first opportunity.

forget how they failed us. And I don't think anyone else should forget either. We still need to elect a new breed of lawmakers after we get the GOP's hands off of Washington, D.C.

New Dems after the GOP is out! Or a new party!

No mealy-mouthed diplomatically parsed verbiage. "Bush tricked me and I am sorry I let that happen. Because this war is therefore illegitimate, I demand that we withdraw immediately."

That's my bottom line. Otherwise, they can go to hell.

Some still support the war. Some don't say anything different from the repukes when it comes from leaving Iraq. I don't care about the past if a Dem is supporting a plan to bring the troops home ASAP.

Forgive -- without a doubt.

Forget -- Never.

I know it's not a popular thing to do here but I have to ask myself what Jesus would do, and I strongly believe that he would forgive. Unfortunately, that also means I have to forgive the Republicans... It will just take a little bit more time to do that if they ever come around to reality.

If they make a strong UNIFIED case that they did not have key intelligence information that would have made it impossible for them to support the IWR. They have to come out and say they were duped, then they will be able to identify themselves with americans who were duped too and make a strong case that the country as a whole would not have supported the war if the true facts had been known.

the time is NOW.

of course many of us didn't fall for that out of mistrust, but we need to think what would appeal to people who are becoming disallusioned with BushCo.

duplicate

Even the best of the best make errors, sometimes grave errors.

If they admit they made an error and move toward stopping the killing, I can respect that.

John Edwards said it best: "I was wrong."

I believe Kerry said, "I made a mistake." I'm not sure, but he did admit the error of his ways and is pressing to pull our troops out.

They admit they were duped or wrong and beat up the Dim Son going forward.

(Note: This means I don't forive Hillary or Joe Liarman)

Time to realize that powermad rePukes won't give up until WE are all the political equivalent of "dead as a doornail."

Well, maybe not Eichmann. Bormann, maybe.

and not just 'cause that's the "Xtian" thing to do, but because I know, nobody's perfect, and as one writer has said. "Human beings just don't know enough yet to not go wrong." We should celebrate that they've seen the light at long last.....we need all the help we can get. A "convert" to any cause can be more zealous and influential than one "born" into the faith, so to speak. So let's hear it for those converts..they rock!!

Edit for spelling

they ignored their better judgment, just to score political points with the ruling class. They are arguably worse than the re:puke:s.

The majority of some Senators' constituents were pro war, at the time of the IWR vote.

that was a quote from either Dr. Hall, or Josiah Bartlett.

quotes Edmund Burke.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." (Speech to the Electors of Bristol, November 3, 1774.)


"But, his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you; to any man, or to any sett of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the Law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. "

http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html

were pumping them up with pro-war crap?

200,000 people now dead and more headed through the pearly gates... please tell me exactly how one can "forgive and forget" that.

Thousands dead in Louisiana...

Incompetence...

Americans going to bed hungry...

Elections muddled with inconsistencies...

How does one "forgive and forget" any of it?

And that I cannot forgive. They failed in their primary job duty, which was to be the collective voice of their constituents. And yet, instead of doing their job and listening to their constituents, they had their eye on their on skin in the upcoming election, and sold us our for political expediency. And now, tens of thousands of innocents have died, with untold numbers wounded, and a country that has been destroyed.

These people do not deserve to remain in office, and should be fired during the primaries next year. That is the only way to assert the will of the people, and if we don't, we'll just be screwed again.

Well said, MadHound!

for all. Some of these folks thought they were doing the right thing. Some of them believed the president when he said war was a last resort. Some thought Bush was an actual threat. Some just wanted the inspectors in. And they got in, too, but weren't given enough time.

Those who take no position now, but wait for Bush to fall, as I've heard Hillary is doing, I have little patience for. Those who are trying to seek proactive answers, and who have said they were wrong in their vote, I believe should be given that second chance to make good.

What is the use of continually bringing up that one vote over and over and over as if we didn't all know who did and did not vote for the IWR by now. As if it were new news.

I also resent that the Senators and Congressfolks get the short end of the stick. What about those who supported the war with their words when it started, but who don't have an actual vote to hang by now, so that they can portray themselves any which way. People should be held accountable for their words as well.

...works to correct the error. And I don't mean only in an election year.

When we voted these people in, we assumed that they would have the political courage to represent us. In most cases, we were wrong, and we should correct the mistake by voting in people with a little courage. It's easy for them to oppose the war NOW-now that the people they're supposed to represent have done all the work and taken all the grief for it. It's supposed to be the other way around. I don't want to have anything to do with Democrats who are working for the Republican party.

I thought the war was wrong from the beginning. I thought from the beginning that Bush was lying and manipulating evidence, and trying to hard to connect Saddam with 9-11.

That said, once we were in action, I do support the soldiers. I want the people of Iraq to have a strong and free country, with their bombed-out homes rebuilt and electicity, clean water, good schools, etc. I want to see our soldiers honored for their service, even if it is in a war that I disagreed with.

Because we bombed their country, we do owe the Iraqi people something. It's our responsibility to help them rebuild, at the very least. I certainly don't want the US and the Iraqis to fail in those goals, and I would hate to see a Sunni/Shia civil war if we withdrew too soon. The cost in civilian lives would be tremendous.

It doesn't mean I like Bush, or agree with his policies, or overlook the corruption involved in Halliburton's involvement or anything like that, but I do not want the political actions of this administration reflecting poorly on the soldiers stationed in Iraq, who joined to serve their country. Military service may not be our choice in life, but it is an honorable choice.

I felt that the Dems that voted for the IWR did so for political reasons and not for National Security reasons. Senators Wellstone and Dayton voted no. Senator Wellstone was in the Senate race of his life, and when he voted no, he jumped up in the polls. He voted his conscience and Minnesotans respected him for that.

What troubles me the most is that a person's character is brought to fore when situations and decisions that need to be made that are not easy and politically expedient. Now that Iraq is a fubar and bus$h's poll #'s are in the toilet, the Dems are saying that they were misled and subsequently wrong to vote yea. We need to be able to have a leadership that makes the difficult votes that may be unpalatable (voting no on the patriot act, etc.) in the short term, but are the right thing to do for the sake of our Nation.

I guess I am willing to forgive, but I am horribly disappointed many many Dems cut us loose and left the base adrift when we, the base and the rest of the country needed them most. How's that for a non answer? I guess I am still smarting from the betrayal that I perceived from my own party. The character of our own party needs some work, before I can wholly forgive, but I am willing to fight like hell to rebuild the Democratic Party.

"What troubles me the most is that a person's character is brought to fore when situations and decisions that need to be made that are not easy and politically expedient."

I watched Dems -- good Dems -- cave at a time their country needed them the most. Skinner correctly says that even if every Dem voted against the IWR, it would still pass.

BUT THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED ONE BIT.

"My 'no' vote wouldn't have stopped Bush" becomes just one more shitty excuse for their own cowardly behavior. If the choice is between doing the right or wrong thing -- no matter what the circumstances -- you are obligated to do the right thing.

The IWR was a vote with the most serious implications for our country, and the most important vote in the majority of those Senators entire careers. And when the going got tough, there were those who did the right thing (bless them all!), and there were those who caved out of 9/11 fear, and those who were thinking about their next election.

A curse, a POX on those latter politicians!

With that vote, Senators, you showed me your true character and what you were made of. And, sadly, I wouldn't trust many of you as far as I could throw you.

The next time the going gets tough, what else are you willing to do? How far are you willing to sell out your country and your constituents because you are afraid/unwilling to do the right thing?

My Senator Boxer recently said her "no" vote on the IWR was the vote she is most proud of in her whole career.

That could have been you, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Lieberman, et al. You too could have stood with the "righteous".

If you'd only had the courage.

be able to "just get beyond what happened with Iraq"

And he was one of the lucky ones - he has all his limbs and most of his mind left...I only say most because he still has nightmares.

I know what you're saying - but please be aware that moving beyond what happened with Iraq isn't all that easy. It's easy to say....but it's just not the reality.

It's still happening, for one - and it will forever be happening in the minds of those wounded and maimed - and to those who lost a loved one.

The Iraqi people can't just get beyond it either - it was their country and their people wrongly attacked, as well as murdered and tortured.

An apology can't bring a person back to life or restore a limb or make a person whole again.

Oh, it's nice and it's the thing to do - but more is needed.

We can't wipe Iraq away with an apology anymore than we can erase the genocide of Native Americans or slavery and Jim Crow with an apology.

Something more is needed and that something more is accountability.

Iraqi people and US troops died as a consequence of the "mistakes" of the US Government - we owe those that paid the ultimate price for the mistakes of others something more than an apology. We owe them justice. We owe them accountability. We have to let Congress know in no uncertain terms that an apology isn't good enough. Saying you made a mistake isn't enough.

What will they do to bring justice about for this crime? For Iraq is and remains a crime, and the dead demand justice. So do the living.

At the heart of every matter is the desire for justice. Some want vengeance, but most seek justice, if not for themselves, then for others for who have been wronged.

I cannot say what would be justice in this matter, as I do not have the wisdom nor do I have the experience of those who felt this war firsthand. However, prison for bush, cheney, rumsfeld, rice, hadley, feith, wolfowitz, and high-ranking others who orchestrated this war through lies and manipulation of intelligence, that would be a good start.

An apology is not justice.

Maybe i'm alone in my colossal mistakes- if people chose to hold grudges against me forever- When I fully accept my responsibility and terrible actions- ones which at the time 'seemed' to be ok- but I have learned to be SO wrong, then they are the ones who lose in the long run.
Forgiveness doesn't mean allowing someone to repeat harmful actions, am I not capable of 'forgetting' things that have been done by others and caused harm. I also understand that even when others forgive me, they still cannot approach me with the 'innocence' or ...'openheartedness' that they might have originally- but it DOES mean, not wanting 'revenge',being willing to re-open communication, willing to negotiate and try to work together with.

If we insist on holding grudges, this world will be filled with solitary societies made up of only one person.

some things are not forgivable

How will you "not forgive" them?

and of course not vote or them

Not for the first three, but for the last.

Are you working for any primary candidates you would like? One that can win the general? They're gathering signatures to get on primary ballots now, you know. A lot of people are standing on sidewalks with clipboards trying to do that. No? Well you should shut up then.

Voted for by almost all Dems from the heady "Smirk lost the popular vote so let's hand him anything he wants" period in Smirk's first term to almost a year after Smirk's re-selection that have seriously damaged this country. It's an almost endless list of bad laws and horrible appointments that were rubber stamped by folks in Congress on both sides of the aisle - - the patriot act, Smirk's tax cuts for the obscenely rich, "No Child Left Behind", leaving the polluters in charge of environmental laws, ignoring global warming, all the wing nut judges now on the federal bench, incompetent cronies like Chertoff running vital government agencies (Chertoff was confirmed by the Senate 98-0), the bankruptcy bill - - all of it working together to leave us with an empty treasury so that future administrations, Dem or GOP, will have an almost impossible time rebuilding what has been destroyed.

And it took five years of us screaming at the top of our lungs before most of the Dems figured out that - - hey, maybe I oughtta vote against Smirk. It took until Smirk's poll numbers were in the toilet before these Dems figured out that Smirk was a liar? They couldn't figure that out from his time as Governor of Texas? Or his appalling campaigns in 2000 or 2004?

This is a serious, important question. Whether the answer is that our guys were too naive, too incompetent or too corrupt is moot - - none of those are qualities we need in our elected officials. If it took you five years to figure out something as basic as "Smirk can't be trusted", would you still have your job?

How much incompetence are we "okay" with?

I think Kerry knew what the fuck he was getting into when he voted Bush that authority. Given Bush's past history of secrecy, skirting laws, or bending the rules if not failing to heed them with respect to labor, environmental, and a whole host of other laws, it should've been obvious that it was not safe to give Bush even more power to abuse than what he was already working with.

focus. i can say it in a hundred ways. why this is all repug, christian right, and bushco

period

I say we work on getting the majority back. And the only way to do that is to stick together as a party. Once we get back then we can weed out the bad apples. Unfortunately, if that means I have to suck it up and accept a DINO from Texas or another "red" state in order to see Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, I will do it for now. Or to see John Conyers as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I will bite that bullet....

For now.

and give up the insane notion of physically conquering the middle east or covering up lies. If not, then no, they are no more honest than the republicans.

I could forgive anyone who changes their mind about this war. I would be glad they have discovered the truth.

If even one person had their mind changed about this atrocity, I would be able to forgive their ignorance in a heartbeat. Forget? Now that is another story.

The were lied to, but were willing suckers in service of the real geopolitical goals, as outlined by the neocons, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and most recently Colin Powell's chief of staff who said:




I'm sick of Democrats telling us a variation of the WMD and terrorist boogey man bullshit.

They are not stupid people. They knew that even if Saddam had a handful of nukes, he would not dare use them on us given our ability to overwhelmingly retaliate from our stockpile of thousands. Hell, we could wipe Iraq off the map and not even miss the warheads we used to do it.

The Democrats either thought Iraq's oil would help our economy, Iraq and Iran trading oil in euros would break the back of the dollar, or worse, like the GOP, they simply wanted American oil companies to profit from pumping Iraq's oil instead of Russia and France.

Er...no.

and its consequences are dealt with.

But in real life, what we see is more of first half, 1/3, ...?

Even though they should've known better (see Barbara Boxer for example) I think it's important to have everyone on board to get out of there and have a plan and stay on message. As long as they are sincere about it and it's nothing political. If they're just doing it for politics than it doesn't really mean anything.

Ill support anyone on either side of the aisle that takes on Bushco.Their motivations might be suspect but we are past the point where we can afford to be spiteful.We need all the help we can get.

What matters to me more is how they handle learning the truth now. What they are doing about it now is my focus, not what they did in the past based upon fake "intelligence." We've all been duped in our lives - if they believed the information given to them then they felt they were protecting this country. No one voted for this mess we've gotten into - no one wanted this outcome.

I think the blame should be placed appropriately where it belongs - on the shoulders of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, on their senior administration officials who took part in the cover-up and on those involved in "editing" the intelligence reports. Those are the ones I want held accountable and punished.

I'll be glad to see them head back into private life, and get off the public dole. To make a "mistake" of the nature that people are now coming out of the woodwork to claim they've made, now that it's safe, and now that the fast, clean, and murderous little war of conquest they thought would happen, hasn't, is a cause for resignation.

It's a point of honor. They voted for it, they supported it, they squawked out the selling points for it. But it isn't going well, is it, so now they want to say they have made "mistakes". Boo hoo. They helped sell this crime to the American people. That's what it is, this war, a crime, and that's really too kind a word for it. They knew what they were doing, and to suggest otherwise is for them to insult our intelligence yet again. From the instant of its genesis as an idea, there was no truthful and valid rationale for undertaking it. Well, actually there were valid and honest reasons for undertaking it, but you won't hear them mentioned by the war pigs who have now seen the error of their ways (new rounds of elections are coming -- there are resumes to be polished!), reasons of power, and lucre and venality, wealth, racism, and religious and cultural prejudices.

As for the Edwards, Clintons, Kerrys et al, who voted for this, and virtually the entire Republican side of the aisle, I might pay them to rake my yard, or pump my gas, but I have no desire to pay them to play the role of "leader". Their moral judgement is lacking, seriously, deeply and telllingly lacking. Let 'em go home and play golf. I'll forgive 'em then. But I ain't forgetting, and I will not support any of them.

That is the best course for us now....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

of their "mistake." Under no circumstances will I vote for any politician who supported this illegal invasion of Iraq.

No excuses!

If I knew better, then THEY knew better... or should have. If they truly were confused and scared, and are now apologetic, then they should resign when their term ends and go home. We can put a "better" Democrat in their place.

today is a much different day. Many Democrats cowered to this administration because of 9/11. It would have been a much different story if 9/11 had never happened and they voted for this.

Yes, I forgive and will forget as long as they continue to raise questions and fight for the authenticity of this war, which is greed.

Life's too short to stay stuck in yesterday. Too many have died already. It's time to get them out of there.

it were not allowing permission for Bush to rush into war.I can truly understand the responsibility placed on those we elect to swear to protect our country and its citizens. I actually questioned some of those who actually did not vote for it thinking they were taking a major risk in not allowing our president the power he needed to protect this country. In answer to your question, yes, I am willing to accept their apologizes. Actually, I really don't think they have anything to apologize for. They were doing what they thought necessary in order to protect this country and us.