Now, about that 'no pro war Democrats' thing....

I see this a lot. "I won't vote for anybody who voted for the war." Period. The end.

Does that mean that you won't vote for them in the primary or you won't vote for them in EITHER the primary or the general election? Cause this really seems like a 'baby and the bathwater' kind of thing to me. I understand not supporting anybody that you are not passionate about in the primary. But I cannot see not voting and possibly handing the election to another Republican who is likely to be really, REALLY pro-war. Not just 'I-don't-want-to-look-wimpy-and-unpatriotic-so-I'll-pass-this-resolution' pro war.

Cause he could appeal to the anti-war people because he wasn't in office to vote for it, right?

from the left in the form or Nader. In Clinton's first run, bush 1 had Ross Perot sucking away his votes.

I hope Gore goes for it. He's the best candidate we have for a number of reasons.

that didn't vote for the war. If the Dem party can't nominate them, then they don't get my vote.

The party already gave a Pro War Voter a chance in the last election. All it did was give the Repubs a tool to bash him with because he couldn't say it was a mistake and he couldn't bring himself to sound as if he fully supported the war. Why give them that same tool in 08?

I comprimised my values for the last time in 2004, and all I got was Bush back in office. No thanks, not doing it again.

Then you get a say in who gets nominated. Fancy that!

...like this piece of shit, for example.

I also never said I couldn't vote for which candidate I wanted.

All I said is that if the powers that be are going to shove an "electable" candidate down my throat, like Kerry and probably Clinton in 08, they better shove the right one.

The party can elect anyone it wants to...the party can't force me to vote for that person...they need to convince me to.

Don't give me this bullshit about rigging the primaries. If you want a particular candidate, fucking do something about it other than sitting back and whining.

"If you want a particular candidate, fucking do something about it other than sitting back and whining."

So, tell me what I did and didn't do during the last election for the candidate I wanted to be our nominee, and the candidate that was...should be easy since you know so much about me...all i did was sit on my ass, right?

You speak as if you're not a part of the Democratic Party. You say if THEY won't nominate someone you find acceptable, as if you're not a part of it. Maybe you weren't clear enough, but that doesn't sound to me like someone working from the inside. That sounds to me like someone on the outside, stomping their feet and holding their breath in a tantrum.

Roberts, IWR, NAFTA, CAFTA, and other bills that passes with large support from the party, and very little resistance make not feel like it. I think the the party is largely controlled by the DLC....so I likely do speak as if I am not part of the party.

I worked on the Hill then. Unless you were in a totally safe district, it was NOT a good idea to vote against IWR. Straight up, it was political suicide. And given that the resolution itself doesn't actually mean anything, because Bush didn't really need IWR to invade Iraq, it made no sense for a lot of Democrats to vote against it.

The White House was bombarding the country with war propoganda 24/7. I have to confess, I started out being anti-war and by time we went, I had started to change my mind. The pictures of people being executed in soccer stadiums, the constant talk of the threat of WMD, the constant insinuations that Iraq was linked to 9/11, the tearful young Iraqis here in school begging us to 'liberate' their country...it was a well-handled media blitz and it worked. Yes, there were a lot of people who didn't fall for it, but there were a lot more who did. We tend to forget that politicians represent a constituency and if that constituency is polling pro war, they are semi-obligated to vote that way. I know that we lived in NC at the time and it was almost rabidly pro war. What was Edwards supposed to do? At that time, he had not decided to run for President and had to think about coming back to his state to explain to the people who were going to be voting to re-elect him to the Senate why he didn't do what they would have wanted.

I admire the people who voted against the war, but I understand the ones who did.

then don't focus on the past ...

i have not said i will never support any Democrat who voted for the IWR ... some were fooled; most were foolish ... and some believed something positive could come from getting rid of the tyrannical Saddam regime ...

on that, honest people can disagree and i understand the point you made about being sensitive to the politics in conservative districts ...

but today, a majority of the American people have called for immediate withdrawal and a far greater majority believes we cannot achieve anything positive in Iraq, especially with bush in office ... it's time to get the hell out of there ...

we're fighting for all the wrong reasons with no hope of success at staggering costs to the country ...

the political argument no longer washes ... even republicans are starting to call for an end to the war ... Democrats should be at the vanguard of calling for withdrawal ... in spite of having little or no anti-war leadership among prominent elected officials and a MSM that barely reports on the day-to-day horrors in Iraq, the American people now, finally, see the insanity of bush's policy there ... the least Democrats could do now that the people have lead the way is jump on the bandwagon ... that would be the politically savvy thing to do ...

The OP was addressing mainly though who say "I won't vote for any who voted for IWR". As such, that's why my post was the way it was.

immediate withdrawal. I knew that the majority had come to think the war was a bad idea, but I hadn't seen anything that said that the majority of Americans were calling for immediate withdrawal.

BTW...what is 'immediate' in military terms? I hear this a lot and don't know if it means "today, right now, outta here" or "ASAP", which is different.

Also, from a Senator or Representative's POV, isn't voting AGAINST funding for 'the troops' a very politically dicey prospect? It is not as if they are being asked if we should stay. They are being asked to fund the people in the field who are there now and won't be able to leave until Bush decides they can. Which he won't do. The funding is going to pass no matter how they vote, right? So what they have to do is either abstain from voting, vote 'yea' and piss you off or vote 'nay' and be branded anti-troops.

I think it would be hard to know what is right to do.

their own skins!

What heroes!

...and calling BULLSHIT would have benefitted....
THE WHOLE PLANET....exactly.

tomorrow's vote on the additional $50 Billion to continue the occupation is the break point ... those Democrats who vote more money for war should be opposed in the primaries and defeated ... they will never receive my support again ...

the point is that the Democratic Party, or i should say far too many in the Democratic Party, refuse to acknowledge the millions of Democrats who either have opposed this war before it began or refuse to support continued funding of the war and the occupation ...

your post takes the view that those who won't vote for Democrats who support the occupation are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" ... i would suggest to you that those Democrats who support the war are responsible for the deaths of American troops and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis if not more ... they have abandoned us; we haven't abandoned them ...

the way i view the "political" issue you raise is that i will not vote for anyone who violates my deeply held beliefs ... hawkish Democrats must understand that when they refuse to represent significant chunks of the Democratic Party's membership, they cannot do so with impunity ... if we "just go along" because of next year's election, the Democrats we would be voting for will likely continue the same hawkish path ... and that is just not OK ...

unity cannot be forced or demanded ... if those supporting the war want our support, they better make damned sure we are heard and given a real voice in the direction of the country ... the point is NOT to elect republicans; the point is to insist on being heard and represented ... if we "just go along", neither of those things occurs ... where is the democracy in that ??

>>the point is that the Democratic Party, or i should say far too many in the Democratic Party, refuse to acknowledge the millions of Democrats who either have opposed this war before it began or refuse to support continued funding of the war and the occupation ...<<

I am not sure I understand this part. I expect that when people who hold your viewpoint outnumber those that don't, your vote and your viewpoint will get more play. How are you being 'ignored'? Because things are not being voted the way you would want them to be? But at this point, 'get out ASAP' isn't the majority viewpoint, right? So why would you EXPECT things to be voted your way?

I am just not sure how they can give you a voice when what that voice is saying (if it is saying "pull out now" and "not one more dime into Iraq") something that is pretty different from what the majority of voices are saying.

the out ASAP view is the majority view of the American people ...

52% want American troops out of Iraq ASAP according to a recent NY Times /CBS poll ... the percentage would probably be even higher among Democrats ...

and being in the majority or the minority is NOT the primary point anyway ... the point is that a very signficant group of us feel alienated by the Party ... we don't see our views on Iraq represented in the Party's leadership ... Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Reid, Pelosi, etc continue to call for more war and occupation but they make no sense out of how anything good can happen while the US continues its insane occupation ...

if we are not given a chance to negotiate common ground, i for one will be funding, working and voting elsewhere ... my position is to vote for progressive Dems first but if none is running, to vote for third party candidates ...

I had not seen that. The last I had really heard, while the majority of Americans were not pleased with the war, they were not swinging towards immediate withdrawal either.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20050917_poll/20050917_poll_results.pdf

90. Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if that takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?

.......... Stay as long as it takes Leave ASAP DK/NA
9/9-13/05 ............42 ................52..... 6

But it could be because I am still not sure what 'get out now' means in real military terms. Obvoiusly it is pointless to say we are staying until Iraq is stable. Realistically, it is not going to be what a normal person would consider stable possibly in our lifetimes. So that option is going to get voted against a lot, I would say.

What IS 'ASAP' in military terms? I think I am going to ask that to the board.

Liberals who make the claim that a yes vote for the IWR piss me off and deserve a chiding just as much as any Repuke who makes the claim that Democrats such as Kerry voted for the war.

This is a Republican talking point like ALL their talking points it is FALSE and a LIE.

READ THE DAMN IWR Understand that a 'Yes' vote for this resolution said "I am giving you the keys to car.....but you DON'T have the right to wreck it"

It did NOT say as so many delusional liberals and neo-cons claim 'Go to War.....because we love war too'


Now if you're talking about Democrats that support the notion of increasing the number of troops in Iraq or additional funding for it....okay then we have a problem.

I bring this up every time this argument comes around. They didn't vote to go to war. They voted to give the pretzeldent the ok to go to the UN, not to bypass the UN and invade Iraq. Now if we want to argue the fact that they didn't impeach him the minute the first bomb dropped on Baghdad, I'm all for it.

Of all the things that irk me, nothing irks me more than hearing other liberals repeat republican talking points.

People who try to use the IWR position against elected officials typically respond to my sentiments by saying "well he should've known NOT to trust Bush!!"

Easy for them to say, if they (Democrats) had all voted no on it then they (the repukes) would have turned around and said "Democrats voted to give the president power to protect the country EVEN if the president sought help from the UN."

No that wouldn't make the Democrats look even weaker in the face of terrorism to the nation (sic), but that's a fact, that's how it would've been spun and guess what? they still would've gotten their crooked war.

It was a no win situation for Democrats at that horrible moment, it was either look bad and hope that the president had a shred of dignity, or look worse, that's what happens when Republicans obtain ultimate authority which is why to me 2006 is so important because it should mark the beginning of the Republican and Bushivik rule.

that this vote for war was actually a vote to authorize the President to declare war after all other avenues were exhausted in order to make it quicker for him to respond to threats related to the WOT. Then Bush, with his usual ham handed tactics, rushed to the invasion of Iraq before all opportunities to avoid it had been explored.

IMO the senators to "voted for the war" were mislead into thinking it was their patriotic duty to stand with the President and they were duped into believing that Bush meant to abide by the terms he set forth.

I know this is highly simplified, but this is the way I see it. Any further insight would be helpful to me.

Also, we were still pretty close to 9/11 and the climate of the country was a little different then. Bush was looking like a tough on terror GOD and was wielding huge influence. People were not automatically doubting him then like they do now.

I was DUPED into thinking it was the right thing also. Most of the country was.

I think our next candidates should make that fact VERY CLEAR when they are on the campaign trails.

not only to cover their own behinds, but it should resonate: "you were fooled, so was I, lets fix this"

And several, including Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton, voted for the IWR against the overwhelming wishes of their constituents.

...in 2004. No pro-war democrats. I won't vote for a dem who voted in favor of the IWR unless that person utterly repudiates their vote and calls for an end to the war in Iraq (or acknowledges it's criminality if U.S. involvement is already ending).

I would like to hear more Dems speak out against the war myself. No matter the climate that got us there, things have changed significantly now that we know a lot more about how the Bush White House was operating during the lead up to the war.

money or time. They don't want it. If it is important for a candidate to be acknowledged as a leader, then they also can do what real leaders do and fully own their mistake(s) and sincerely apologize. Any candidate that claims they were mislead further destroys their credibility, judgment and decision making credentials. we already have a selected president who has demonstrated an inability to acknowledge mistakes and if IWR vote casters want to be in the mold of Bush, then let them dwell in the mire and muck with him saying how much they still support his policies.

Those who were so willing to casually spend precious American blood and treasure on the Iraq War have a solemn obligation to vote for war when the thresholds for war are met. This did not happen. Instead, it was a blanket authorization that did not put any checks and blances for the protection of Iraqi's or Americans. Further, to allow a focus on Iraq rather than on the capture of the perpetrators of 9/11 further erodes any confidence one could have in their leadership or presidency.