The Contortions of the Pro-War Dems

Their words, not mine:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1273-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptop_ts

Eloriel

The price you pay for getting on what (temporarily) appears to be a popular bandwagon, when you know in your heart (they knew then, damnit) that it is the WRONG thing to do.

Now its biting them on the ass. I hold them complicit for the death and destruction in Iraq. Smirk could NOT have invaded without their votes.

I don't buy the all-too-convenient "were forced into it", "didn't have a choice", blah, blah blah excuses.

YES it would have been hard to go against the grain and to confront the monkey in the WH. But damnit, that's why we count on them when they claim to be "leaders". Some Dems were brave and their voices were heard against this madness. They were brave and courageous and deserve to be called leaders. The others can take a long hike off a short diving board into an empty pool.

would be sorry. And now that it's happening it is so surreal.

I think those who voted for the war were looking to eliminate a political edge they thought Bush might have over them if they voted against it. The neo-cons would have successfully painted them as "weak on security", "unpatriotic" etc.

They hoped to make it an election based on the economy. It doesn't seem to have worked very well. I mean sure the economy is a great thing for Dems to campaign on but they screwed up just like Bush on Iraq and I don't think the masses are really going to believe they were duped, at least not the masses voting in the Dem primaries.

Julie

.

And how sad is that: sacrifice a whole country, unknown thousands of innocent civilians who happen to be a different color than you, innocent Iraqi troops, our own brave and willing American troops for your political motivations? Not to mention dump even more tons of DU, or spending all that tax money when there are so many needs at home, or alienating our allies and snubbing our noses at the U.N.?

Did I say it was sad? It's bleeping outrageous. In more than that, it's unforgiveable.

Eloriel

All those dems who voted for it are followers and not leaders. They do not have my support to lead the party. It will be a disaster of a campaign

?

in another thread, the four pro-war presidential candidates, just don't "get it". ;-)

And w/all that has been in the news since July 10, to me, that's "unthinkable".

Their votes put their signatures on thousands of death certifcates.

The media and the "I'll give an antiwar speech and then vote yes" Dems had the same agenda--going for Bush only after the war is over. I think the fix was in for the war to happen, but I don't from where or whom. If the power-broker Dem leadership rolled over, the fix was probably in, and that explains the lock-step of both themselves and the media with bush until after the war.

I mean, COME ON - they KNEW Bush was a thieving lying piece of sh** WHO STOLE THE ELECTION yet they "TRUSTED HIM DO DO THE RIGHT THING"? They aren't leaders, they are wishy-washy ASSHOLES who FAILED TO DO THEIR JOBS.

I cannot forgive them.

on the resolution haven't said that "Bush was a thieving lying piece of sh** WHO STOLE THE ELECTION". To this day, NOT ONE of the Dem candidates has gone so far. If that is your criteria, then every Dem has failed.

THEY ALL KNOW BUSH IS A LYING PIECE OF SH**.

If *we* could figure out that Bush was lying, and *we* took to the streets and demonstrated en masse against this war, and *we* called our reps day in and day out begging them to vote NO to the resolution until proof was made available, how dare *they* now come out and say incredulously they couldn't possibly have had a clue that the proferred evidence was at least dubious from the get go.

And as if the war itself and all that means weren't bad enough, I get even angrier when I think about how hard they had to work at ignoring us.

Eloriel

We're constantly confronted with questions of how an elected representative should appropriately behave. Do they merely echo a majoritarian 'opinion' of their constituency? Are we really able to objectivize and normalize constituent 'opinion'? (I'm dubious.) Do we really expect our elected representatives to act according to their own (possibly malformed) 'opinion'? What would be the difference between that an acting on the (possibly malformed) 'opinion' of the electorate? What if there were far more contemplation, examination, discussion, and interaction between the representative and the electorate -- instead of less?

The question itself brings to mind an approach to problem-solving evident in Japanese businesses -- stakeholders at all levels discussing to death the perceived problem(s) absent any advocacy of proposed 'solutions'. It reportedly drives 'Western' businessmen nuts out of frustration. Westerners are habituated to the dialecticism of the adversarial approach, where (half-cocked?) proponents of various 'solutions' engage one another until a "third way" (sound familiar?) presents itself. What's evident, however, is that the Japanese approach more often than not arrives at a point where there's almost total consensus on an approach to dealing with the problem. In a sense, they get to a point that there's a shared "keen sense of the obvious". Ideological differences present themselves in the Japanese approach in the ways in which the 'problem' is perceived. Ideological differences present themselves in the Western approach in the ways in which the 'solution' is designed, often without full examination of the actual 'problem'. Westerners are plagued with "solutions in search of problems" -- which, when applied, are not often efficacious. Japanese are conversely plagued with problems without solutions -- which, however, strangely seem to evaporate before the discussion are complete. I've personally found that "90% of solving a problem is in understanding the problem." Unfortunately, such understanding often comes subsequent to enacting a 'solution' -- if at all.

"So now Kerry is saying his vote was based on faulty intelligence from the administration while still maintaining that he has absolutely no question about the validity of his vote. But if the intelligence was faulty, doesn't that call into question a vote based on it? Not in Kerry's view...

... So what's going on here?

Simply put, with anger among the party's base off the charts about the basis for going to war, the pro-war candidates can't afford to not challenge the president.

Many grass-roots Democrats were questioning the administration's assertions about the threat posed by Iraq long before the White House acknowledged last week that it should not have included the Iraq nuclear assertion in the president's State of the Union speech. War opponents questioned the administration's claims about Hussein's links to al Qaeda, Iraq's ability to launch a quick strike against U.S. allies in the region and the Iraqi government's alleged attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to be used as centrifuges for enrich uranium. (See The Post's story, Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid.

But the pro-war Democrats can't backtrack too far. In choosing to support Bush last fall, the four candidates decided to accept the administration's reasoning over the doubts of many in the party. To switch gears now would be to acknowledge that they should not have done so."


Draw your own conclusion.

was their total disregard for the Constitution. Senator Robert Byrd spoke eloquently on the floor of the Senate about how they were abdicating their responsibility by giving the pResident the power to declare war at his whim. That was disturbing.

...that the invasion was based on a series of lies and exaggerations. One could probably forgive a stupid vote...but now that there's no doubt that the Bushies lied there's no excuse for them not speaking out and demanding investigations and possible impeachment.

Why should we vote in support of such a candidate and enable such a travesty?

We have people who aspire to be President who:

* Profess to have believed patent lies, against even common sense (why weren't our allies with us, why weren't Saddam's neighbors more afraid? why was the UN balking?)
* Ignored all their constituents but apparently DID believe the polls re Bush's popularity
* Ignored the Constitution, ignored the reality of war (destruction and death -- lots of it), ignored international law, ignored the pleas of our allies, etc.
* Were afraid of being called unpatriotic and were willing to wreak all that havoc because of it

And THEY want us to believe they are LEADERS, worth of taking on the reins of leadership pf the world's only superpower? They are FOLLOWERS, not leaders.

Ptooey.

Eloriel

We have people who aspire to be President who:

* Profess to have believed patent lies, against even common sense (why weren't our allies with us, why weren't Saddam's neighbors more afraid? why was the UN balking?)
* Ignored all their constituents but apparently DID believe the polls re Bush's popularity
* Ignored the Constitution, ignored the reality of war (destruction and death -- lots of it), ignored international law, ignored the pleas of our allies, etc.
* Were afraid of being called unpatriotic and were willing to wreak all that havoc because of it

And THEY want us to believe they are LEADERS, worth of taking on the reins of leadership pf the world's only superpower? They are FOLLOWERS, not leaders.

Ptooey.

Eloriel

"blank check" to invade a sovereign country. That this was a total change in our foreign policy. Anyone who supported giving Bush that "blank check" now has to be "suspect."

It's gone past political ambitions. If Byrd knew it was wrong and he so eloquently stated it and based his statements on facts, then how can we give a pass (knowing that Byrd and we who protested were correct) to any of our candidates or even other elected Democrats who like lemmings followed Bush.

I don't hold those who tried to Amend the resolution as accountable (Levin, Spratt..others) as those who voted without protest. Those who weren't even in the audience while Byrd poured his heart out on the floor of the Senate.

He deserves a Congressional Medal (Byrd) NOT Tony Blair.............

on this thread...........after maneuvering through the sometimes chaotic new DU-2. :-)'s

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Which isn't helped by pushing the "post message" button multiple times.