Here is how you answer the "Democrats voted for the War" meme.

These Senators had the guts to give the Chimperor a thumbs down:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Do NOT FAIL to mention that the majority of Democrats in the House voted NO!

In the Senate, 22 of the 50 Democrats voted no on the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). However, of those still serving in the Senate, the opponents of the IWR comprise a 20-18 majority. The yes votes no longer in the Senate are Carnahan, Cleland, Daschle (who were all defeated), Torricelli (who probably would have been because of scandal), and Breaux, Edwards, Hollings and Miller (who all retired). Of the no voters, only Wellstone and Bob Graham are gone from the Senate. And in the House, a solid majority of Democrats--126 to 81--voted no. Even in Congress Democratic support for the war was a minority position.



We were screaming against the war LOUD and CLEAR. MILLIONS marched against it. If the DLC-funded politicians and the republicans failed to hear, it is their fault, not ours.

I went to DU twice as part of mass protests against the war before it started. The DLC, and conservative Dems in general, ignored us because they are Republicans in sheeps clothing.

By the way: Thanks Hillary Clinton! Thanks to Dems like you, it's now harder to end the slaughter in Iraq! Good luck on your Senate & Presidential runs.

...voted against the IWR.

Note to Dems: Notice how, in the long run, doing the right thing works out.

When you compromise with NeoCons and fundamentalists, you always get burned.

the DCCC- the folks who are deciding who will run for congress. he is out there digging up primary challenges for good progressive candidates, while thugs are running unopposed in his own state.
his minions are here at DU, smearing good candidates.
this is how we end up with these thug lites in our party.

When 'pukes say: "Well, your guys voted for it", I just say "NO, my guys voted NO, the MAJORITY OF DEMS VOTED NO"

You can defame or defend individuals if the puke fires back with names.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned the DLC in the original post, but I couldn't help myself.

were reporting FACTS from on the ground in Iraq proving that military action was NOT needed.

It is foolish to blame the IWR for war when that lets Bush off the hook for violating the guidelines of the IWR that required the UN stipulation for diplomacy and weapons inspections be met first.

Blaming the IWR was GREAT SPIN for Rove and his media minions who got away with violating the IWR even while muting the many Dems who pointed out that Bush was rushing to war when weapon inspections were working to prove war was unnecessary.

Thanks to all who helped turn up the volume on that spin.

Don't need to even GO INTO it when you state that most Democrats VOTED AGAINST IWR, PERIOD!

Instead, the attacks are on the IWR as if it forced Bush to go to war. YOUR way lets Bush off the hook.

It's much more simple to say that NO Democratic president, senator or congressman would invade Iraq after weapons inspections were proving military action was NOT necessary for our national security.

AGAINST the IWR?
It accuses Bush!

And it's not "my way" vs. "your way". Its just the truth.

voted with Bush?

Side-stepping the issue to avoid the fact that SOME dems voted cynically to enable the invasion just plays into their hands vis a vis their "flip-flop" meme.

We VOTED AGAINST the use of force. It's the truth.
I let pukes know we are a changing party.
It's the truth.

The resolution passed based on faulty intelligence. Should we allow Bush to start pointing to Democrats who voted to pay for the war, or to Democrats who now say it's important that we succeed as his way of shifting the blame?

Bush is to blame. Bush lied. Bush started the war. Bush violated the resolution.

The meme we are confronting is "they authorized it".

We DID NOT authorize it. Most of us voted NO.

Yes, Bush is to blame. Yes, Bush lied. Yes, Bush started the war. Yes, Bush violated the resolution. Yes, Bush should be impeached.


And....

YES, most of the Democrats voted AGAINST giving him the power to "violate the resolution" in the first place.

when he made his determination that war was necessary DESPITE the weapons inspectors reporting the exact opposite.

Blaming the iWR means that IWR was responsible for war and Bush was only acting properly according to the IWR when he went to war.

He didn't.

But who focuses on Bush's violations of the IWR? Nobody, because the WH, GOP and its media all say the IWR was a vote FOR war to ensure Bush is not examined for VIOLATING any of the IWR's guidelines.

And many on the left are eager to accomodate them by reinforcing the STORYLINE that the IWR is to blame. They DROWN OUT the Democratic voices trying to point out that Bush rushed to war WHILE weapons inspectors were proving war was not needed.

that "we" voted for it.

The majority of "us" DID NOT vote for passage of IWR. Period.

You can make your argument from there. But their premise must be disputed.

Don't you agree?

that Dems were concerned about Saddam. That is untrue.

Dems wanted Saddam contained and they wanted weapons inspections to determine whether war was necessary for our national security. That is the truth and the record proves it.

Bush wanted war no matter what. That is the truth and the historic record is proving it.

The simple, direct answer is that the MAJORITY of dems DID NOT vote for the IWR.

What is the problem with the truth?

Defend the yes voters where you may. Parse phrases, mince words, whatever! Most of us voted NO!

accountability for his VIOLATING the guidelines in it.

YOU blame IWR itself letting Bush off the hook.

it is critically important that the American people continue to believe that only Congress has the authority to declare war ... it is dangerous to reinforce the belief that the choice of going to war belongs solely to the President ... any President ...

looking specifically at the IWR, it's important to accept the premise that if Congress had said "no", bush could not legally have gone to war ... that is the "storyline" that needs to be reinforced ...

the process of going to war must start with an authorization from Congress and then a decision by the President to act on that authorization ... it must not be argued that engaging in warfare is something that only one branch of government can bring about ...

to argue that only bush is to blame sends the wrong message ... the invasion of Iraq was a two-branch process ... Congress, at least those who voted to authorize the use of force, bears the blame for providing bush with the authorization he needed ... and bush is to blame for rushing the process and invading Iraq without adequate justification ...

as much as we would like to put the entire blame on bush, the truth is that the blame is shared between the two branches of government ... that might not make for the politics we prefer but it does reinforce the way our system of government did, and should, operate when war hangs in the balance ...

in the end, regardless of what judgment Democrats had hoped bush would exercise, some of them voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq ...

But MOST of them did NOT!

:smile:

my point was that we should not spend our capital trying to defend the votes of those who voted for the IWR ... those who did provided bush exactly what he wanted: the authorization to use force ...

what we should do is 1. agree those Democrats were wrong 2. point out that many of them acknowledged they were wrong 3. point out that bush lied to them although they still should have known bush had already decided to go to war even before they voted 4. bush was wrong to invade Iraq because he hyped the evidence and had no justification for invading and 5. he's created a catastrophe by his mismanagement ...

but I think that No. 1 should be:

The majority of Dems voted NO.

and used the original 1991 UN resolution to do it. That was what Blair wanted to do in the first place, based on its firmer legal grounds.

Bush wanted his political battle on IWR to divide the Dem party.

He had the votes already to do it his way without weapons inspections and to go after Iran and Syria after the fall of Baghdad, so the Dems had to get the best IWR they could get - Something that few people have the wherewithal to even acknowledge the difficulty of that duty in their haste to condemn the IWR itself.

We did NOT vote in a majority for the IWR.
FACT.
No spin needed.

IWR would have PREVENTED war with ANY other president administering it - even Reagan.

YOU let Bush off the hook for violating IWR.

does not mean Democrats should have voted to "authorize the use of force" ...

saying they did so to force bush to go to the UN or because they wanted more weapons inspections is not a justification to vote to "authorize the use of force" ... of course, the positive things they sought were quickly swept aside by a totally corrupt administration and we're still at war today ...

my view is that the Dems who voted for the IWR should have known better ... was there any question in your mind that bush was going to go to war one way or the other? i'm sure there wasn't ... the scenes of Gephardt, Daschle, Lieberman and others standing "shoulder to shoulder" with bush was disgraceful ...

let me ask you this question because i really don't know what your position on the IWR is:

you stated that: "Dems had to get the best IWR they could get" ... is it your position that the Democrats who voted against the IWR, i.e. those in the Party's majority, were incorrect for doing so (given what was known and not known at the time they cast their votes)?

That has no impact on holding Bush accountable and making the case for his impeachment.

The Democrats were not wrong because they voted based on the intelligence. Bush provided faulty intelligence.

Bush lied. That's all.

do you disagree with them?

i don't disagree with your statement "The Democrats were not wrong because they voted based on the intelligence."

those who voted for the IWR were wrong NOT because they voted "Yes" because they believed there were WMD; they were wrong because they trusted bush ... they should have known that bush wanted to go to war no matter what evidence he could or couldn't produce ...

and i again agree with you when you said: "That has no impact on holding Bush accountable and making the case for his impeachment." ... but that's not the only issue here ...

those who voted for the IWR should be held accountable for authorizing bush to use force in Iraq ... they used poor judgment and contributed to one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in the country's history ...

i want to see bush impeached too but i'm not so partisan that i won't criticize those Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force ... their votes empowered a man who has dreams of global conquest ...

the more reason to focus on how damaging what Bush did was.

again, i agree with should focus on the devastation bush has caused ...

but that does not mean we should bury our heads in the sand and not also focus on the wrong choices made by those who voted for the IWR ...

history is not an either-or proposition ...

There is no need to prove they were wrong because "they" voted NO.
That's all.

Good luck with that.

how many times do you want me to say it: "the IWR was not a 'vote for war'; it was a vote that 'authorized the use of force'" ?????

yes, bush had options after the IWR was passed ... he abused the IWR because he never proved the case for war ...

but those Democrats who voted "Yes" agreed to "AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE" if bush determined force was necessary ... and that was their critical mistake ...

anyone failing to acknowledge that the IWR provided bush with the cover he needed is just not reading the document correctly ... if you give a burglar a map to your house and key to your door, it's hardly reasonable to argue you're not at least partly responsible for the fact that you were robbed ... yes, the crook could have made a different choice ... still, you shouldn't have handed him the keys to the castle ...

inspections and diplomatic measures were taken.

Bush ALONE made the determination even AFTER weapons inspectors were sending back reports that military action was NOT NEEDED.

Show me where the weapons inspectors gave Bush information that proved war was necessary.

He made a false determination on his own, PURPOSEFULLY violating the guidelines in the IWR.

Spend more energy on this bullshit just to make sure Bush gets off the hook while all blame is heaped upon the IWR - a resolution that would have PREVENTED WAR if administered by any other WH - even Reagan's.

The ONLY way you can blame the iWR is if you believe that IWR = War.

You can ONLY blame Bush if you believe that he acted in violation of the IWR and its guidelines.

he said: "The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no "slam dunk case" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there's no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise." and this: "I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq."

i don't know how much clearer this can be ... the IWR "authorized bush to use force" as he determined to be necessary ... it didn't "require" him to use force but it did "authorize" him to use it ... and Kerry, in the two statements above, correctly acknowledged that:

1. because he was not given the truth, he voted (via the IWR) to go to war in Iraq and
2. because bush lied about WMD and ties to 9/11 (did he actually believe this?), the Senate agreed to vote on the IWR that "authorized the use of force" ...

it mystifies me that you disagree the IWR "authorized the use of force" ... i understand it was CONDITIONAL ... the mistake Kerry and some other Dems made was that they left the full determination of whether those conditions were met up to bush ... they never should have voted as they did and they are right to now say so ...

my point is NOT that bush shouldn't be held accountable for lying to Congress and for committing war crimes ... i'd like to see him dragged before the World Court ... i like to see him put away in a dark hole for the rest of his life for the crimes he's committed ...

when you say: "You can ONLY blame Bush if you believe that he acted in violation of the IWR and its guidelines.", i'm not sure what argument you're making ... bush totally violated the law when he sent documentation, as required, that he determined the conditions for war stipulated in the IWR had been met ... why are you suggesting that i don't believe bush violated the IWR??? he absolutely violated it and what he did is a felony ... and what he's done since is a series of war crimes ...

Democrats words to prove it's not his fault.

Bush knew what we now know and took the country to war. No one else would have.

The resolution authorized the use of force, but set specific conditions for such action. Bush violated the resolution.


Kerry yesterday:

“And what about the President’s promises to Congress that he would work with allies, that he would exhaust all options, that he would not rush to war? If the President wants to use quotes of mine from 2002, he might look at the ones that were not the result of relying faulty intelligence and trusting the President’s word. As I said in my floor statement before the authorization vote: “If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day…Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1157


Kerry before the vote (two sources):

WHAT KERRY SAID
Published: November 16 2005 02:00 | Last updated: November 16 2005 02:00

White House-released quotes claiming to show that leading Democrats backed removing Saddam Hussein.

The quote:

Senator John Kerry, December 2001: "I think we have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . . Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."

What was left out:

Larry King, CNN: "We should go to Iraq?" Kerry: "Well that - what you do and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking-gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorisation to proceed there."



The rest of Kerry's statement:

But we clearly are he ought to proceed to put pressure on him with respect to the weapons of mass destruction. I think we should be supporting an opposition. There are other ways for us, clandestinely and otherwise, to put enormous pressure on him and I think we should do it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/14/lkl.00.html

who promote the spin that IWR = war and focus blame on a resolution that would have prevented war with ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. Because the IWR had guidelines for a president to administer before he made that determination.

If they can't understand that the energy from the left used to attack the IWR and those who supported it benefits the Bush gang ONLY, then they are beyond persuasion.

It makes Rove's case that IWR meant you supported war no matter what. That is the spin that gets promoted. That is the spin that I'm fighting.

one could probably make that statement about any criticism, warranted or not, of those who criticize Democrats ...

when some of our guys screw up, and some of them did, we have to say so ... their judgment was wrong about the IWR and they've said so ... it's important not to convey a totally partisan attitude when the truth is that they did, regardless of conditions, authorize bush to use for if HE determined it was necessary ... they've admitted they were wrong; we shouldn't hesitate to do the same ...

this in NO WAY should let bush off the hook ... bush lied to the Congress, he lied to the American people and he manufactured evidence to make his case ... IT IS A FELONY ... and the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, the unlawful detention of prisoners in Guantanomo, and the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah should land his lying ass in the defendant's box at the World Court ...

here's my "political" position on all of this ... first, we should acknowledge that Democrats were lied to ... second, we should say their votes were wrong nevertheless because they should have realized bush made up his mind to go to war long before the evidence was even "manufactured and manipulated" (a phrase Harry Reid used) ... third, we should demand investigations of the series of lies to the Congress that induced so many to vote for the IWR ... fourth, we should point out that a majority of the American people believe, that IF bush lied, he should be impeached ...

blaming this whole thing on bush is NOT the best politics ... Democrats who voted for the IWR should freely admit that, in spite of evidence that bush wanted to go to war from the day he was elected, they trusted him and were wrong to do so ... of course, you still have Democrats who say that in spite of the lies and the absence of WMD, they still would have "voted for war" (their phrasing not mine) ... don't even get me started on them ...

i think it's healthy to criticize Democrats who voted for the IWR, not unhealthy ... i think they made a huge mistake ... i see no reason to defend that mistake ... but it was bush who lied, bush who failed in Iraq, bush who went to war for oil and bush who committed war crimes ... my criticism of those Democrats who voted for the IWR pales by comparison ... as i've said, this was not an either-or proposition ...

I am right, however. Most broadcast media and the entire RNC equates IWR as full support for war as if there were never any guidelines that Bush needed to meet.

They get away with it because so many on the left have accepted that spin and use it themselves, drowning out those voices speaking out about the weapons inspections proving war was not needed.

that some Democrats, i'm thinking specifically of Schumer and Clinton, seem to be perfectly content arguing that they supported going to war and would have done so in spite of the absence of WMD ... let's be clear that some DLC'ers are pretty damned gung ho ... it has nothing to do with conditions of IWR or lies bush told or anything else ... frankly, i think they see political advantage in proving how "tough" they are ... it's disgraceful ...

is it OK to criticize those Democrats? or are all Democrats out of bounds?

examining what they have actually said. But, I know for you specifically, that's not a problem, as you try to gather all the pertinent info you can get first, so I'm just speaking generally.

I just don't trust the media's motives for why they foster certain perceptions over others.

direct quotes are always the way to go ...

i have no faith in the media either ... still, they seem to have had a huge change in tone the last month or so ... it might just be the case that the powers that be have seen enough of bush's act too ...

just because they have a corporate agenda doesn't necessarily mean they see bush as the best vehicle to implement it ... ride the wave while you can ... bush is going down ... cheney too ...

based on the evidence was wrong is not healthy. You want them to admit to doing something wrong when they didn't. They voted based on the evidence. Why do you want them to lie? Why do you want them to do this?

i'm fairly confident that you have no idea what i want ...

"bush lied to the Congress, he lied to the American people and he manufactured evidence to make his case ...

blaming this whole thing on bush is NOT the best politics..."


You want the Democrats to accept responsiblity for being lied to by Bush. Makes no sense to me.

i want YOU to accept responsibility for failing to acknowledge that many Democrats have said their vote on the IWR was a mistake ...

and i want those Democrats who TRUSTED bush to acknowledge they were wrong to do so ... it was clear long before the IWR vote that bush wanted to go to war no matter what the evidence indicated ... or do you disagree with that?

and, of course, this is a tiny, tiny fragment of "what i want" ... i assume you must have known that as well ...

VOTED NO!

All the while running around saying that war was "not inevitable" and that war was his "last resort"--a line he stole from John Kerry, by the way.

It is now apparent through the Downing Street Minutes and other recent revelations that Bush had made the decision to go to war in the spring of 2000, and that Bush acted in bad faith, lying to both the Congress and the American people.

But the Republicans think impeachment is reserved only for presidents who lie about "sex" under oath. Taking a nation to war based on manipulating and cherry picking intelligence is A-OK with this bunch now running Congress.

I still won't back any dem that voted for the IWR

But I am vigorously supporting progressive candidates in local primaries (and not-so-local)with time and money.

I think we CAN change our party. I think the majority of dems are solid. I like Edward's mea culpa.
But I am TIRED of being bullshitted about the IWR vote, when we all knew EXACTLY what it meant to vote YES.

And most of OURS voted NO!

thanks for your post ...

it's important to point out that a majority of elected Democrats understood that the case for war had not been made ...

it is truly tragic that those who voted for the IWR authorized bush to use force if he determined force was necessary ... they should have known that he had made that determination long before they ever cast their votes ...

I concur.

We don't have to be apologists.

Why mince words? Hit him with the truth.

...and confessing that they were DECEIVED, LIED TO, FOOLED, BULLSHITTED...by the Monkey and his cohorts, no less.

The lesson here is that is what you get when you put your trust in a greedy, power-mad LIAR.

Sorry I am not going to buy the Karl Rove story.

I am glad for those Dems who voted against IWR. But I am not going to buy the Karl Rove Story that poor bush is a victim of the Dems. When it was BUSH WHO LIED AND SAID SADDAM HAD< WANTED <NUKES>

We have all been screaming at the top of our lungs that Bush lied.

The majority of sitting Democrats in the Senate and the House didn't believe the lies.

I was wrong and I'm sorry-- no convoluted rationalizations.

A good move and an honest/honorable thing to do. If you were an enabler, own up-- and then yes lets MOVE ON.

But youre right the opposition WAS a big part of the whole picture. Thanx for posting this list passingfair-- its a keeper.

from polls and discussions the public believes Bush lied.If Bush wants to start blaming Democrats for voting for the war let him!

Americans aren't getting caught up in it though.They know HE lied to take us to war.

Bush lied.People died.Impeach the bastard.eom.

Letting them say whatever they want without countering with facts is what got us into this mess.

"Let him"? I think not.

that weasel blames the Democrats the worse his poll numbers get.

I think the public is finally waking up to the criminal behavior of the POTUS et al and isn't buying their Bullshit lies and excuses anymore.

Bush is digging his own grave by blaming the Democrats.The public knows he lied.

THAT'S how you answer the "voted for the war" meme.

"Voted for IWR" does not equal "voted for war". Simple fact. BushCo promised to complete a process, and he did not. If he had completed the process, we would not have invaded Iraq. Simple fact.

Hang Bush for violating IWR, not Democrats for trusting the U.S. President at a time when their constituents demanded that they trust the U.S. President.

Anything else plays into the frame and the game of the repubs. IMHO.

No constituents that I know, anyway.

The spin you're putting on the issue is what plays into the game of the repubs.

We voted against the IWR, plain and simple. Those that voted for it were duped by false and cherry-picked intelligence.

has now been replaced with public distrust of Bush. Now, more than 70% of the public believes Bush lied.

he's a liar!

Stop trying to spin their betrayal. They voted for war, and they did it for political expediency. The blood of tens of thousands is on their hands, along with the repig congress members and the admin.

You could care less about what the IWR actually mandates - you're more concerned with ascribing to people motivations that they never had. You know what the IWR says, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Perpetual, self-inflicted ignorance is a bad thing.

inflicting that ignorance upon yourself.

In the days up to this vote, every Dem I know of knew it was BS, knew what Bush was going after...and to swallow that the Senators who voted for it had no idea is the height of ignorance. It's blind adoration of fallible politicians. I'll never buy the spin...yes, I said it...the SPIN. They were all complicit in backroom, insider politics. An apology from those who voted for Bush's Folly would go a damned sight further than excuse number 7,224.

I didn't trust GWB when he ran for governor in TX, let alone when he was selected to reside in the WH.

After the 2000 selection, and with his stellar record as a drunk, an incompetent businessman, and an "absent" national guard member behind him, I somehow knew better than to "trust" GWB. I sure as hell wasn't demanding that my reps "trust" the thugs in the WH.

Why shouldn't I expect my reps in congress to see the obvious? So they could have a convenient excuse when their vote backfired?

Joes...then they sure as hell knew it. They are trying to spin basic backroom, good ole boy, politics into something that'll get them elected by John Q. Only, this time, a heck of a lot of John Q's aren't listening...or buying.

Bite it DLC. You made that bed.


:hi:

of Michigan.

the world would have seen millions in the streets protesting against this illegal and immoral war.

peace.

The majority of the Democratic House voted in behalf of their constituents.

The majority of sitting Senators voted in behalf of their constituents.

They saw us.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

I've always been amazed how they slipped the 911 stuff in there:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

...by the pro-war sell outs to explain their actions.

We're spoiling their PLAN! Tipping over their chessboard.
Guess we're not supposed to mention the dems that voted DOWN the IWR.
Shhhhhhh....

Thanks.

not that it matters because Bush started the war.

once the madman had already sent them in.
What's your point?

The troops weren't going to starve. Look to Senators Byrd and Kennedy and the handful of others who voted against both. Cut the hipocrisy. No Democrats voted for the war and no Democrats are responsible for Bush's actions.

Bush was up to. Those who allowed it are just as responsible.

Then show me where it states that Congress declared war. An easier challenge: show me where it states that Bush can unconditionally attack Iraq.

It's BS to try to manipulate the facts.

him the ability...WE ALL KNEW THAT. If you didn't...you weren't paying attention. Why do you think there were people sitting on the side of the road in cars crying as they read the roll that day? Keep on believing that your complicit heroes are innocent, and we continue on the road to destruction. I'd have more compassion and admiration for them if they admitted they fell for insider politics than trying to spin it...and spin it again. A vote for IWR was a vote saying "GO FOR IT" no matter how it was worded.

A vote for IWR was a vote saying "GO FOR IT" no matter how it was worded.

You have a right to your opinion; but if you say that this is what you comprehend from reading the resolution, then I throw up my hands!


One more question:

Did you vote for Kerry?

*ush, Bliar, sexed-up intelligence, dodgy dossiers and common sense.
And of COURSE SHE VOTED FOR KERRY. She had no other choice. And she walked DOOR TO DOOR to promote him, and choked back ANY criticism, and I know, because we did it together!
You have a lot of nerve.
Your "heroes" made a cynical vote. One which they figured they could spin regardless of the resulting carnage.
Sorry that we won't roll over and let your spin wash over us like so much salt water.
Tens of THOUSANDS of people have died.
And the MAJORITY voted NO!

If Kerry is in your mind as you make him out to be here, why didn't you do in 2004 what you wanted him to do then, vote against someone you say he should never have trusted? You trusted Kerry when you voted?


At least he voted based on the evidence. What was your vote based on?

I don't CARE about Kerry. I care that the MAJORITY of DEMS voted NO on the IWR.
I praise them. I don't condemn Kerry.
I work for progressives in primaries.
I hold my nose and promote and vote for the "other" dem candidate if the progressive does not win the primary.
This thread is not about the yes voters.
It is about the brave and bullshit-free majority of our elected representatives that voted NO.

higher, though of course there was no direct vote.

Even now, if there were a poll of Democrats only and were asked who if they think US troops should leave now instead of the phased withdraw favored by Dem leaders, the overwhelming majority of rank and file Dems would favor immediate (as in very soon, without preconditions) withdraw.

Hey Dem leaders, you listening??

campaign, when he had just voted against giving bush authority to start the war if necessary. he was almost shaking when he said his conscience had made it impossible for him to vote for the war, completely apologetic, expecting us to be disappointed, but we all cheered and clapped and told him he did the right thing, and he was elated.

i have no idea what average Democratic Congressional figures were going through during that time. i'm sure the political pressure of looking unpatriotic was spectacularly high. if a full-blown Liberal like Paul was worried what we'd think, his core supporters, imagine what a moderate Dem would feel. i can understand why they voted to give permission. they were holding out hope that it was all posturing designed to get saddam to cough up these "nukular wmds."

about Democrats voting for the war. He said they were like mushrooms - kept in the dark and fed manure.

That a MAJORITY of our representatives, in BOTH HOUSES voted AGAINST
the IWR?
I guess I must.

Until the fact more Dems voted against is hammered home on MSM, the general perception will remain that Dems voted for it, too.

I'm urging all dems to counter the IWR condemnation the bushies are using by stating the fact that MOST DEMS voted AGAINST IT.
Choose to defend or apologize for individual politicians as you see fit, or as it comes up.
We said NO

:)

Just looked to me like a lot of folks on this thread would rather ignore the votes of the majority and concentrate on twisting the logic behind the yea votes.