These Senators DO NOT have to apologize. They voted NO on Iraq!!!

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Grouped By Vote Position NAY

NO Vote on Authorization for Iraq War

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)

On the 0-100 scale if who needs to apologize, he ranks 100.

Some intelligent and strong leaders there. I miss Paul and wish Mark wasn't leaving Minnesota after this term.

senators...the former mayor of St. Paul and dental aficionado needs to do some time in the Iron Range;).

did not administer the resolution with integrity.

IWR would have prevented war if administered by any other president - even Reagan.

It's just history and these folks need to be honored.

Bush and Cheney Lied, witheld information, hyped information, created elaborate briefings that showed exactly where the WMDs were, terrified the Am people by claiming that Saddam either had nukes or was about to get 'em. We have learned thru Fitz investigation etc the extreme lengths this crowd was willing to go to in order to protect thier lies.

So Bully for The Senators who voted against the resolution. I am proud of them, as I was on the day it happened.

And blame Bushco for lying to the rest. People have a right to believe their President when he says we are in danger, especially when everyone was scared shitless post 9/11.

politician who voted in favor of those lies. Those politicians either were duped by shoddy lies (that millions and millions of people in this country and world-wide were screaming were lies) or were not duped but voted in favor of the lies for political gain. Either way, saying "Bush fooled me!" is no badge of honor and a shoddy excuse for letting the country down...

I can't believe anyone actually thought that there could be any accountability on the initiation and prosecution of the war through a piece of paper. I don't mean I can't believe as in "I am very surprised Senators believed this" I mean I don't believe it because it's totally fucking absurd.

The people up in the Senate aren't retarded, nor children of 5 years. Once the President starts a war and the Congress gives its authority, that's it. They are off to the races. By granting its authority no matter what else they add by way of conditions etc., the Congress loses all its authority--or all of its ability to exercise discretion over that authority, which in practice is the same thing. The war is then completely in the hands of the Executive which will prosecute it in conjunction with the military chiefs at the Pentagon, consulting Congress from time to time only to bully it for more money.

It will be a long ways down the road, and only if the war looks like a failure, before the Congress can question the conduct of the Executive branch ever again, or put any conditions on it, or hold the Executive to any previously agreed conditions. Once the war is started any attempt to check or question the Executive, eg: did you really have a legal cause for war? will face accusations of "emboldening our enemies", in effect, accusations of treason.

Any adult near government KNOWS this. That is if they're not lying.

Hey, I'm 20 or so miles away from the scene of the crime and I knew it. It was all there...THE BIG LIE.

Your point on "granting its authority no matter what else" is telling. The Senate lost its voice.

only real intel that was operable at the time,thanks to the IWR.

Bush lied ALONE when he said we needed to invade Iraq for our national security after weapons inspectors reported that there were no weapons endangering the US.

I just hate the spin game, auto. It was pure mediaspin to blame the IWR, itself, because that way Bush was off the hook for not implementing the IWR honestly.

How about this:

"I knew that the claims justifying the Iraq war were based on weak or non existent evidence. I knew it directly from my reviews of evidence and, wow, Graham, Wellstone, Sarbanes, Inouye, Byrd, the heavy hitters, were all over this telling us it was a total fabrication.

But I didn't want to seem to oppose the war on terror and I didn't want to face the consequences of voting the truth when the political costs were so high.

Therefore, I voted in favor of the resolution even though I knew it was based on a series of egregious fabrications.

That's the way it was."

Just tell the truth, don't apologize. It's the first step: "admitted I was powerless over political expediency and that my country has become unmanageable."

...but please, no more Oprah apologies.

I think they all had different reasons. I think Kerry laid his out neatly - He was one of the strongest ant-war voices in the late and summer early fall, his op-ed made a strong case for Bush needing to go to the UN and to Congress. He was one of those who thought there was some chance to avoid war or to at least be with a real international effort through the IWR. His floor speech at the time of the vote discusses his concerns that it could be misused and listed several PUBLIC Bush promises - he said if Bush nisused the authority he would be among the first to speak out.

and he was - speaking out BEFORE the war started. After the invasion, Kerry called for regime change. He stated that the Senators were at most quilty for trusting the President - for him this is true.

Whether it is true for others depends on their motivation. Some voted out of fear for their political futures. However, that may mean they voted the way their people wanted them to. If they did this because they felt this was the most honest thing to do - that's ok.

Some, like Edwards, really believed in the war itself, not out of politics- as he did months after the invasion. He now says he was wrong. This is honest.

...they voted KNOWING that WMD and the rest of the rationale was a lie. I was convinced of this and I'm not even an insider and my beliefs were based on evidence all over the place.

I like Edwards but if he really supported the war, he's not turstworthy in his judgement, as are all the others who suppored it.

Kerry knew, they all knew it was based on fabrications. This who voted no are great people. Those who voted yes are either limited intellectually (if they "believe") or political ...um... expedients.

My apology statement is only for this who fall into the latter category.

They deserve no breakis. Do you get any? Do I? Does anybody in this country that has to shoulder the personal loss, inrury, delayed priorities, the $300 billion debt.

After the inspectors were in it was known to be a lie. In October, it could not be ruled out 100%. It was also clear that there could be war no matter which way the vote went.

By March it was 100% obvious that there were no WMD, and at that point Kerry spoke against the war. (Dean was anti-war only starting in about March, April 2003 when the inspecters found nothing. The only difference is that he had no vote.)

In Kerry's case, he did take responsibility about a month ago. Prior to that he had said he was wrong to trust Bush.

so don't get me wrong. And I'd work for him again tomorrow.

It's just a matter of taking responsibility and us judging character. They KNEW that Rummy set up the special group, they knew that Rummy was sowing disinformation as an official policy in the "foreign press", and they knew that Cheney and CIA were at odds.

The main thing they knew was that Bush and Co. were so unscrupulous, they disinfranchised 50,000 black Floridians from voting and staged false riots during recounts, etc etc, in order to steal the WH.

That was more than enough to know he was lying...100%, nobody ever knows that.

I want somebody who has a good track record of standing up and saying "the Emperor has no clothes."

I get SO sick of re-posting that!

DO NOT FORGET TO MENTION that the MAJORITY in the HOUSE also VOTED NO ON THE IWR!

"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."


When your slack-jawed puglican acquaintances hit you with "you voted for it too", don't get bogged down apologizing for enablers.
Tell them the MAJORITY of us voted NO!

Because its the TRUTH.

Why is this just becoming my truth????

I heard Jackson-Lee was one of the only to vote against it.

Shit. Either I'm a total idiot, or there has been misinformation floating around.

Thank you for posting this, you guys.

The "party plan" is to make our enabling representatives in the senate look like they were hoodwinked by the bad pResident.

Plausible deniability. That's why they voted to give up control of our war-making powers. If the chimp had pulled it off, they'd come off smelling like roses.

In the greater event that everything went to shit (and boy, has it EVER)they could claim they were lied to. They saw it as a "safe" vote. In years past that might have been the case, but WE ARE WATCHING NOW.

The DLC doesn't WANT you to concentrate on the fact the most of our elected representatives, in the House and the Senate, did NOT cynically vote to send our own troops to be slaughtered OR to authorize the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's in a NAKED GRAB for OIL.

He's hammer the hammer and wake up a few folks.

Thanks!

did vote. I'm not going to hold it against any dem that voted yes, i can understand why they may have felt compelled to do so.

I am proud of those who voted against it. I didn't like the vote either, but distorting it as a "vote for war" is letting * off the hook. Plus, it plays into the hands of the corporate media that the Dems "don't have a plan" line.

There are many who are working to get us out of Iraq. Talking about who voted for/against it is only keeping Dems divided instead of coming to one simple conclusion:

THIS IS BUSH'S WAR PERIOD.

It's called "enabling." It matters in terms of who gets chosen to lead the party.

These 22 Dems (with Wyden, left out by my error) are qualified to lead the party based on their judgement. That's useful information for me as an active Democrat.

is because it was so very important. It involved the lives of so many people, as those of us who opposed the vote itself, were aware of and terrified that this administration, once they had 9/11 to use, would go on a war rampage. That was obvious.

It may have the nuance of not really being a vote 'for' the war, but that's not how it was presented to the American people. Most people thought it was a 'war vote', as Bush intended.

What I will never understand, ever, is how anyone in their right mind would trust that man with anything, let alone the power they gave him that night (and if it was not a vote to give him power, then why bother with it?)

Exactly what's happening now, was what those devious bastards intended. They would strangle the Democrats, back then if they voted 'no', and later on if they voted 'yes'. Intelligent Democrats should have known it was nothing but a political ploy, imo.

Maybe they were afraid that if he didn't get his way, he'd arrange an another terror attack or something. But short of that, I see no reason why anyone trusted that man. His objectives were obvious. If they didn't understand that, I agree with Autorank, they may be decent people, but they don't have the leadership qualities necessary to give ME the kind of confidence I would like to have in a leader.

We will always be divided about this. In that sense, Bush won. Had the Dems been united, this entire debacle would have been on his shoulders. Now, he gets to 'share' it with at least half of the Democrats.

That vote was so disappointing to many of us at the time, that it became a litmus test for who to support in the primaries. I only supported Kerry when there was no other choice, and I spent the whole election period arguing with and trying to explain my support for him, with people on both the left and the right. Next time, I do not want to have that dilemma ~ I felt that we were placed in a very bad position, after being so outspoken against the war, to have to defend someone who voted for it. Yes, I know, it wasn't a 'war vote'. But have you tried arguing with a rightwing war supporter about the nuances of that vote?

We always have to explain everything ~ 'look, it wasn't a vote for the war, it was etc. etc.' This is no position to be in. Bottom line, if this had been a chess game, the Dems who voted for the IWR, allowed themselves to be checkmated. The fact that we're still explaining it, is proof of that.

Very well stated. One of the best synopsis of the predictable, by many of us, consequences of anyone voting for the IWR.

Recommended.


Peace.

We are, and have been, at the mercy of the devious bastards since Dec. 12, 2001. They've played us and screwed with us ever since.

We are divided, and they are the ones driving the wedge with help from the reverbs of multiple stolen elections.

So, what do we do? We swing our swords but end up only cutting the ones closest to us.

Honoring these Congresscritters is good medicine, but realizing fully the row our people have had to hoe is the best pill to swallow. We must forgive those who have tresspassed against us, and keep progressing.

======================

One thing about this whole Iraqi invasion thing that gives me hope, is the fact that it almost got stopped. No, not by a vote, but by the way we people took to the streets. I can not recall such a movement in either of our last two invasions.

That's a good group right there.

I honor and remember those Democrats (and the Independent) who STOOD UP AGAINST the NeoCons regardless of the political consequences.

I will find it difficult to fully support those who are NOW (poll driven?) trying to claim that they didn't REALLY vote for the Iraq War (fingers crossed). Some from this crowd are NOW finding their voices, and I'm listening....but they will never make the HONOR ROLL!

of my senator Barbara Boxer!!! :yourock:

Mikulski and Sarbanes Whooo Hoo! I am so proud of them.I always knew Barbara is cool and like usual during the Iraq vote she and Sarbanes kept thier cool..

Tom Harkin is one that I was surprised is not on this list. Harkin is an excellent Senator who votes the right way like 95% of the time. If somebody like Senator Harkin said, "Look, I fucked up, I trusted Bush. It was incredibly naive of me and I am truly sorry for how terrible this whole thing has turned out," I would believe that he was telling the truth.

Certain other Senators, however, were definately playing politics and they are now discovering the consequences of doing that.

go Michigan :-)