why the IWR vote doesn't matter

those who voted for it reflected the general feeling of the public, and those who voted against it voted their conscience despite the same general public acquiescence.


We as a nation have to get past this, like it or not, its our war, all of ours, Democrats and Republicans and we're stuck with it.

as bitter a pill as it is to swallow, its not W's war, its the United States' war.

Solutions, or steps to wards solutions, not recriminations, is where our best efforts should go.

Democrats ignore this at their own peril.


Tell me how I'm wrong

You get over it I never will!

The decision to invade Iraq was made on November 7, 2000. After that happened, nothing else mattered, the die was cast, the course was set.

The entire brigade of sneering liberals telling America that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans", backstabbed the real progressives of this country and threw the 2000 election to Republicans. The green contingent of that group did it in numerically proveable fashion in Florida, but in fact the entire lot of sneering liberals cost us untold millions of votes with their out and out lies. That's the beginning and the end of it.

Sneering liberals have been whining for us to "get over it". I never will, and your voice will never mean anything to me but rancorous, backstabbing traitors to progressivism. You did it. You own it. For all time. Those hundreds of thousands of dead on your lies aren't coming back. You may have gotten over your own treachery the minute it was complete, but the rest of us aren't about to "get over" what you did in 2000, anymore than we'll "get over" what the Supreme Crooks did in 2000.

Sneering liberals wanted this country to suffer under a Republican president to teach us a lesson. Well, your 'lesson' has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and a host of other ills that I barely need to explain here on DU. Everything that BushCo has wrought is ON YOUR HANDS.

The short version: bitter, backstabbing liberals are COVERED in blood.

You want to talk about IWR? You threw this country, and this party, into the pit of hell, and now you want to be all sanctimonious like it is somebody else's fault. Fuck that and fuck you, murderers. YOU threw Hillary and Kerry and Edwards and every other Democrat that was forced to make an IWR vote into that pit along with the rest of us. They had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sending us into Iraq. YOU did that. They couldn't have done anything to stop it if they had walked onto the Senate floor with AK-47s blazing, let alone by voting against a meaningless IWR.

Sorry for the dose of reality, backstabbing liberals, but all of the blood in Iraq is on your hands. Look in the mirror if you want to see craven, sanctimonious murderers. Base your next vote on that why don't you.

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

same crap you've been spouting all along, alienating our natural allies. No logic, no discourse, no rational thought at all, and you are what most of amerika (incorrectly) thinks of when they think of liberals.

Saddled with people like you, it is small wonder that Gore did so badly that they were able to steal the election.

Because the conditions of the IWR were NEVER met!

6 more American soliders died yesterday. Another war crime was committed as we murdered Saddam. SOME had the clarity of vision and the balls to vote against this atrocity. Fuck those that didn't.

As a nation, that is obvious, just as we had to get past the Vietnam War. But this war is still going on and it's only been four years, not forty, and the public has just recently started understanding the dimensions of the tragedy. Expecting Democratic voters to reward candidates who led us along Bush's path with a presidential nomination, just because they are sorry they did it, is a kind of forgiveness that takes more time than we've had. And then, what will be the difference eventually in the general race between a Republican who voted for the war and a Democrat who voted for the war? None. That's what will be all over the air waves in 2008.

If our Founders wanted to have a direct Democracy, they'd have given us one. They did not. Congress should do the right thing. They have not - time and time again.

The folks who voted for the IWR harmed our country badly. The folks that voted against it did the correct thing. Instead of the latter being lauded, they've been marginalized.

Shame!

The representatives are supposed to represent. Millions demonstrated in NYC against war. Yet not only both my senators, but my Rep Carolyn Malloney - they all voted against their constituents.
What does the word "representative" mean again?
And are you saying that the Bush bar applies from now on to all our elected leaders? They can blow up the world but if they say "oops" it's all fine by us?
Oh, wait, you are not even requiring an "oops" here - I guess Joementum is covered by your generosity too!
The vote meant bad judgement, lack of integrity, disregard for the law and human life. And didn't really represent the real general feeling, only the one the MSM propaganda told us existed.
No more opportunists!
And that goes double for those who SPONSORED the damn IWR!
(Joementum and Edwards, I'm talking to you)

Since he WAS voting the way the majority of North Carolinians would have. I am not relying on the MSM propaganda. I am relying on my personal experience from having lived there. Listen, we went and protested the war, too. And got spit at and nearly run over. And that was in 2004 before the election. There WAS anti-war support by then, but in October of 2002, it was much less.

And MILLIONS?? Come on.

on par with PNAC, Powell & the rest.
And yeah, there were millions - maybe one million at a time - but properly counted at several major demonstrations in NYC. Sorry to startle you with non-MSM numbers, but that was the case.
here's the case against Edwards (who makes Hillary look good):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

Less than thirty days before the prior election. The election where Edwards was running for Vice President along with a candidate who had ALSO voted for the IWR. What did you expect him to say?

As for 'non MSM' numbers, I really hate people who are always screaming 'have you got a link for that' at the drop of a hat, but I am going to have to do that.


How big is the Times Square celebration? How many people show up for that...Well, lets get a link...Ok, I am back from Google (Google really is your friend).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240285,00.html


According to this story, they are expecting 'hundreds of thousands' of participants for the Times Square thing tonight. Are you seriously trying to tell me (or anybody else for that matter) that something many times bigger than the New Year's Eve Times Square celebration occurred in NYC and even the MSM managed to ignore it?? Or are you even trying to tell me that many times more people than will show tonight came to this protest?

Good luck with that.

>>>The vote meant bad judgement, lack of integrity, disregard for the law and human life. And didn't really represent the real general feeling, only the one the MSM propaganda told us existed.>>>>

Edwards *sponsored* it?

I'm surpised, actually.

IOW the elected representatives are not required or expected
to hold a public meeting on every vote that comes up. You, the
voting public, elects your representatives AT ELECTION TIME, and
then they can vote their best judgement, not mob votes on every
issue.

>>>Solutions, or steps to wards solutions, not recriminations, is where our best efforts should go.>>>>


...*judgment*. Or the lack thereof.

22 Senate DEMs, and a majority of the House DEM caucus voted against IWR.

35% of the American electorate ( despite all the double talk and misrepresentation from their leaders and mindless and incessant hype from the $$$MSM ) opposed the war. 90% of the population in the industrialized world opposed it.

If the average person can see thru such a pitifully constructed smokescreen, should we expect *less* from elected representatives?

Solutions? Let's start by listening to some of the folks whose good judgment on this issue has been established. Bush's ISG contained *no* members who opposed IWR.

I would never say that the IWR vote doesn't matter. For one, I don't want to get lambasted from one end of the DU to the other. For another, it DOES matter. It was a BAD vote. I agree with the point you are trying to make, but just saying it didn't matter is a little disingenuous.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

not because :cry: :cry: :cry: someone voted to allow Bush to go into Iraq mistakenly thinking he was a reasonable guy and because they supported the popular cause at the time. I'd rather vote for the person who is the best chance of beating a Republican than for someone simply because they were against the war from the beginning to the end. And note the lead Republican candidate is not that far behind the lead Democratic Candidate which may be Edwards.

he/she did not vote for the war? Or are you more interested in voting for the candidate that can most beat the lead Republican candidate?

All due respect, that's a cop out. If the IWR Dems were fooled by Bush's PR and spin, then they don't deserve to be considered for higher office. If they weren't dooled, and just voted for it for political reasons, then they don't deserve to be considered for higher office.

It wasn't that hard to see through what Bush was up to. The hard part, apparently, was standing up to him.

i'll take issue with your subject line: "why the IWR vote doesn't matter" ... of course it matters ...

if you made the statement what we do NOW is more important than focussing on the past, that would have been fine ... but to dismiss history entirely is nonsense ...

those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it! i'm sure you've heard that one before ...

for me, it's not about "recriminations"; the importance of reflecting on IWR votes is to see who has learned from their mistakes and who has not ... i, for one, would not want to vote for anyone who still fails to recognize that Iraq was and is a corporate war ... it's critical that those who made the tragic mistake of voting for the IWR demonstrate that they now understand why it was wrong so that we can have confidence they will not make the same mistake again ... just as both the past and present are important, so is the future ...

so the problem i have with your premise is that it calls for a solitary focus on where we are now when a better path is to focus BOTH on where we are now and on how we arrived here ... even in the real time present, we need to be introspective and measure our situation against the lessons of the past ... if we don't, we might soon find ourselves mired in yet another misguided war ...

and one last point - too many mistakingly argue that "bush would have invaded Iraq with or without the IWR" ... but that view far too narrowly defines the standard for right and wrong on the IWR ... even IF the assertion were true, and i question it, it still matters what our elected reps say (and teach) the American people ... just because the outcome MIGHT have been the same (i.e. bush invading Iraq) does NOT mean Democrats didn't have an obligation to caution against the insanity of the war ... the ends do not justify the means ... the right vision, which was that invading Iraq was promoted by the military-industrial complex and the oil industry, might eventually "take hold" with the public and prevent another unnecessary war from occurring sometime in the future ... we need to value educating the public about how we see the world and where our values lie even if doing so has short-term political consequences and even if it does NOT prevent bush and his corporate hawks from doing the wrong thing ... some lessons take longer to learn than others but if we hide from the truth, we do not deserve to be entrusted with power ...

I agree with your points, but the question is not certain as to how we truly know if someone has learned their mistake.

Those who voted against, didn't make the mistake so we can trust them on that basis.
How do we know those who voted in favor and now say they realize they made a mistake are serious and not just seeing which way the wind is blowing?

I don't trust them, especially Hillary Clinton and John Edwards who are in the pockets of the big corporations.

As long as Dennis Kucinich is in the race he is the one who best represents my views so I will support him over any other candidate, because supporting a candidate for anyother reason damages our democracy.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/009/009d_bd_kucinich.php">Is Dennis Kucinich the Black Candidate?

welcome to DU, Gregory!!

we can never know with absolute certainty whether someone we've elected is 100% trustworthy ... at some point, you listen, you assess, you make your call ... and to make the right call, we as citizens must know the issues and must have good values ourselves ... omit any of these factors and your judgment will likely be a guess at best ...

Democrats often talk about "special interests" but never seem to ascribe corrupt motivations to political parties or to certain "think tanks" ... for example, Democrats might rightfully criticize the abuses of Halliburton in Iraq but never seem willing to say that corporate greed was bush's incentive for war in the first place ... they seem willing to speak about lobbying reforms but never seem willing to say that our institutions are corrupt ... it's good; it's not good enough ...

for those who have said their IWR votes were wrong, my standard of trust and forgiveness is that I need to see and hear them at my side fighting the battle and preaching the right message ... "we went to war for corporate greed" ... "the war was wrong because it was nothing but a revenue grab by the military industrial complex and big oil" ... i'm not holding my breath ... Eisenhower warned of this and yet most of today's Democrats seem afraid to utter the words ... how will this corruption ever be changed if there is no leadership to raise the issue???

and one last point in response to your statement that "Those who voted against, didn't make the mistake so we can trust them on that basis."

I would NOT especially use a "No" vote on the IWR as the criteria for trust ... even here, I think it's important to drill down into the reasons for voting against this insane war ... while I am of course in full agreement that the correct vote was "NO WAY", it's still important to know what the reasons for the "No" vote were ... i'm afraid many of those voting against the IWR did so more on the basis of a lack of solid evidence and less on the basis that the whole damned thing was motivated by corporate greed ... the next time evidence that convinces them is presented, will they have the good judgment to question the administration's motivation and its ties to the MIC and big oil? until I know that, how much trust should there be ???

as for Kucinich, I voted for him in the 2004 primaries ...

:evilgrin:

doesn't change the fact that what you said wsa offensive

Polls taken prior to the invasion show that most Americans would support the war ONLY if the UN backed it and there was an international consensus. We know there wasn't.

The American public are not in a rush to go to war and they want hard evidence before supporting any military action



Graph of Gallup Poll:




On top of that, if you're speaking of John Edwards, that is, Edwards was the ONLY Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee to vote in favor of moving the resolution out of committee.

It's not that Edwards was misled - other Democrats, including Kennedy and Wellstone, heard the same evidence as Edwards and decided it wasn't good enough to go to war on - it was that he was wrong.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

the horrors of war and those who enable it is now permanently attached to this simple and overtly stupid post in an analogous manner the IWR is attached to those who voted for it. A lack of insight, clarity, good judgment and learning from history, Gulf Of Tonkin, National Security Council debacles - see Iran Contra, Bay of Pigs, WHIG as well as seeking expert opinion in opposition before that vote is an American disgrace that shall not be wished away because some poster is clapping their dainty little hands like Tinkerbell and wishing to believe it does not matter that blood splatters are on their preferred candidate's white knight suit.

This issue is part of a collective on the foremost national security and global FP strategies of the day important to Americans and the World at large. Those who voted Aye willingly agreed to hang the albatross of shame around their own necks by not doing due diligence but adhered to the drums of war as if it had no permanent consequences. These non-leaders and professional pols kowtowed for the sake of political expedience, moral cowardice and clung to the craven excuse to vote Aye because of ambition and an utter lack of will and Courage. That is and always should be a factor in consideration of merit for the office. President is not a gift with purchase job because they are likable. Trust is important and demonstrating a lack of working in the best interests of America by voting Aye should be considered no matter who was stupid enough to vote for this travesty. Now on the backs of dead people they are harvesting apologies and mea cuplas to try and claim an inherent right to the highest office in the land without fully explaining rationales for such a vote. They can not go forward without a thorough examination and a lack of civic responsibility is the province of those made uncomfortable by standing and demanding accountability in the way our democracy is managed. Your post is representative of those republicans who did not practice oversight of Bush in six years and you are seeking to ask us not to practice oversight of our own elected Democrats because it is unseemly. Get fucking real or choose not to exercise your civic duty by allowing those who forgive easily because their preferred candidate is part and parcel of the review process - those are the choices because one is an American.

This war was not the moral equivalent of choosing between Wheaties and Cornflakes. It is a reflection of mediocre analytical skills and a failure to honor those who were killed in the construct of a pre-emptive doctrine of Empire and American hegemony without heed to centuries of American History.

People died and lost limbs. The lack of appreciation for pain and suffering caused in OUR NAMES is a reason for to take citizenship in the American political system seriously. Decisions have consequences and the pain and suffering of tortured minds over such a morally craven and crass vote is the absolute Least people can pay after enabling a war agenda by a man who stole an election and ran out on his military service commitment to this country.

To say that recriminations are not the way to go, put your loved ones on the line before cavalierly dismissing those who paid the price and bore any burden because some non listening asshole in the senate ensured that the War Powers act was violated and the Constitution and Rule of Law were shredded. Being a president means acting like one before you get the job, not after. Hopefully, your next post will show more RESPECT for those who believe that loss of life and limb for a lie is not to be dismissed casually or rewarded with a presidency because the propensity for making loss of life decisions is already proven poor by those who were elected by the People to do the People's business, not Bush's.

your message on this subject is influencing my thinking ... perhaps i am still more willing to find a path to forgiveness but perhaps i have been too lenient as well ...

for me, apologies or "i was wrongs" only carry meaning if their basis is sound ... "I believed there were WMD" is pathetic and unacceptable because the whole problem was that they "believed" what bush was telling them ... if you do not start with a fundamental understanding of corporate lobbyists, and greed and corruption, how easy it must be to get you to "believe" anything ...

the mistake was NOT that war is always wrong or that, if genuinely threatened by WMD, the country should not have responded militarily; the mistake was in trusting a regime so obviously corrupt ... to trust any of the YEA voters again should demand a very high burden of proof that lessons have been both learned and internalized ... i'm afraid we've seen far too little of that ...

great post as usual, Pithy ... eloquent and passionate ...

none! NONE, ZERO.

on this basis, I assert that anybody still wringing their hands over it are just crying over spilt milk, which has never served me well in the past.

That's why the post displays the the intellectual range of a one celled organism. IWR is about who America is as a nation and how it will use its mistakes to learn from and go forward. Democracy should be utilized to fully examine every aspect of a politicians record for fitness to serve lest we have another apologetic Britney Spears's, Oops I Did it Again moment by wannabe celebrity presidents because the time to examine it was dismissed by the People are Disposable crowd. The cheap dismissal of the IWR vote is the province of those without skin in the game and a belief in Bush's Manifest Destiny for the 21st century. Too bad those who believe that the Constitution is the core of democracy will defend it with Honor against those casual American citizens who diminish more philosophical and esoteric studies of Democracy. The Founding Fathers fought a guerilla war to give you the right to dismiss Democracy casually - others value it as the spine and core of the nation. An IWR voter has already betrayed the Constitution once.

An Aye IWR voter would have to earn the respect of the world community and that will be hard after the world begged the USA not to be a unilateral military power. A casual and careless dismissal of that cowardly vote displays a stunning lack of intellectual rigor and concern for moral standing in determining whether any candidate with a proven propensity for national security stupidity should be given the nuclear football. Voting for president is a Life or Death decision, but if one would like to treat it as if it is the equivalent of what youtube video to watch today demonstrates more about them than it does the serious American republic and those who regard their civic duties embedded in the Spirit of the principles America was founded upon. Electing a president is playing Barbies to some as that is the most effort chosen to expend on something so important. Those to squeamish to bear a full examination of each and every candidate before them in an election try to short circuit the system because managing cognitive dissonance is too painful.

Electing a president is not for the faint of heart or those bereft of Humanity.

not trying antagonize, but what would be your answer?

Republicans got kicked out first because of Iraq and corruption. Do not underestimate how angry and sick the public is about the Iraq debacle - it will carry over into 08 because the Decider has made it rather than announcing a timetable. Iraq is on the table for 08 and how we got there is as well with Democrats leading the investigations.

not one single Dem who voted yes lost? how can you explain this?

do you really think democrat led investigations are going to hammer other dems going into a presidential election cycle? I think these investigations you speak of will more like be a giant you-a-culpa to the republicans, and another opportunity for the dem party machine to deflect(expertly) any genuine introspection.

Democrats were associated with opposing Bush, no more, no less. Because what you said is true about deflection, do you honestly think the investigations will go without comment in the press about Democrats culpability as well as the press saying ad nauseum which Dems voted for the war? Even hardball brings it up every chance it gets.

Some Democratic candidates have stature and credibility because they are on the record opposing. Hillary has to own the stupidity of the vote and the media will be on that moment as it is a perfect storm compare and contrast opportunity made for politics. The blogosphere itself is weighing in and it shall be discussed thoroughly as national security is a dominant and resonant theme in 2008. People were quiet to get Democrats elected, but that does not mean the passion about the atrocity of that vote has abated. Those Democrats in the Senate Webb, Tester and Sanders shall not go Quietly into the Goodnight on Iraq. Many people are being caught short because of a misplaced belief that it was OK now after the election, it is not. It will remain an issue as long as an American is dying on Iraqi soil.

we are all responsible, like it or not.


perhape not responsible for the initial push for war, but definately responsible for it now.


to point the finger at one party(or worse one individual)is to miss the point entirely.

for championing and in Edwards and Lieberman and Bayh's case co-sponsoring Bush's world view. (Bayh got no traction and in that there is a lesson.) Pre-eminent military action is an embarrassment to them now after they have been discredited and not something to be shrugged off like a sweater, they voted it, broke it and now own it. Powell's Potter Barn Doctrine shall live in perpetuity for them as it should since they broke homes and many inhabitants are dead.

There are those who choose to fix it and a number of different thinkers are in a position to this. Those who have created the disaster are no longer leadership material or as creditable on the issue. They are now followers behind those who had it right from the beginning. Trying to assuage guilt by making a moral equivalence argument is specious. Many Dems benefited by being associated with those who deserve leadership by being on the record against such a travesty, not with those who failed America in every way by voting for IWR. Those who want to be president and made the stupidest vote ever are not the ones who will be taken the most seriously on prescriptions resolving the Iraq issues. The rise of certain Democrats is making that apparent. That is why the those who made such a debacle of their Honor, Courage and Principles by voting for it are subject to deserved intense scrutiny because they have already proven to be unworthy of being president. The campaign for them now is trying to appear contrite while seeking votes from the easily swayed. Those who made the problem are not the ones who shall fix it, but they will get behind those who have the moral standing to lead. An IWR Aye pol is on the long road to atonement and the first stop is not the presidency.

perhaps more than were utterly correct from moment one, or demand that from a candidate.

and were let down and some are dead. Those voters are not to blame nor are they culpable as it was the elected leaders who failed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. One would think a former First Lady would have gotten it right and not been so eager to applaud Bush's pre-emptive doctrine and Manifest Destiny ambitions either. Voters had their trust betrayed and now they know and hopefully are wiser about who merits presidential standing.

its so common as to hardly even rate a mention anymore.

I think the top Iraq issue will be where do we go from here, and there will be very few who base their vote on anything from '02-'03.

where we go from here is so much more important.

A disgraceful dismissal of the dead and dying by excusing felonious politicians for their proven moral cowardice is what a voter who will sell themselves dirt cheap for any moldy crumbs for any candidate of ill repute, does. Those politicians that voted aye cast what remained of their dubious Honor as faux Pearls before Bush swine to advance their own agendas and ambition, especially those who sold their principles to announce for president. Some of those had been war heroes and a first lady and more is expected not less. A thoughtless voter who expects less shall also reap the ill begotten "gains" of what they sow - that is the sewage level of shameful dishonorable action that gave this country Bush. If the Bush model of whitewashing and instant cereal forgetting as espoused by your post is near and dear to a voters principles, then regaining American Honor and moral standing is not held in the Highest Esteem.

The only way forward is to honor the past by making every attempt to right wrongs done in our names with presidential candidates that have the Grace to follow the model of Nelson Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation Commission by fully stating their parts in the crimes, owning them publicly in full, not in part and pledge atonement. Any effort less than that makes for many an unworthy candidate of which a failed voter dismisses History who wants to doom America to repeated moral sins of Empire.

Politicians are in the era of having to be held accountable, History seems to have passed you by, yet again.

and you have made some very salient points.

I simply disagree.

I just think its not going to be on very many voters minds by the time '08 primaries roll around, although a smart candidate could certainly make it a ongoing theme of their campaign.

All the yes voters are going to do their best to bury it and bury the shovel. I guess time will tell which way it will fall.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses

and as I decide who that person is, I look at many factors, one of which is the IWR vote. I consider a vote against the IWR to be a strong positive - but it's not the only thing I look at. I am also looking at what they say now, how passionately they say it, with what authority they say it. I look at who they are, and what they say about their vote. I look at the reasons they voted, for or against. This tells me more, truthfully, about who I - an old school pacifist - want to be the next president.

You have this test of yours. Up or down. Fine, that's you. Fortunately, others think of this tragic episode as vastly more complex than you allow.

You bandie about the phrase 'strategic thinking'. Try it.

is beyond the Limited who choose to excuse Democratic co-sponsorship (Edwards, Bayh, Lieberman) and enablement of the war and and public support given to a lying Commander in Chief more times than an apology has been issued. In the years since the IWR was voted upon how many Dead was that before the mea culpas started? It is Bush's war cosponsored by some Dems who failed the Constitution, the Military and the World's Public at Large. Their Beastly Burden for Atonement is higher as their culpability was prominent. The bloodied and Honorable Dead deserve Honor not Dismissal as some rush to erase a Historical action by trying to bleach the stain og blood and shame from their actions by partially acknowledging their actions while in office. Any IWR Aye candidate on that path has to demonstrate they believe the words not merely say them. Their Honor was used as a welcome mat for Bush to walk alll over and to regain a semblance of that those who are Loathe to repent and recant should also apologize fully - and as often as necessary. Kerry eloquently said who shall be the last man to die for a mistake. Who shall be the Least not to acknowledge in full the mistake?

The Constitution is vastly more imporatnat than any mere presidential candidate. That is the principle that is overlooked by those trying to seek a valid reason to put an IWR voter as Commander in Chief. That is no small document that was torn asunder by those IWR cosponsors and Aye votes. A candidate owes reparations in Words and Deeds to the fallen - not approbation because of an admission of the Obvious. For those who expect so little shall reap the Wind. One aplogu is just one less than the 650,000 owed, so far, and due until each and every reason for the action is fully disclosed including the Hunt for Ambition and ego gratification. To demonstrate that a Full Measure of Devotion was respected it is imperative that the Dead and dying be Honored and the Constitution be restored to its rightful place in the moral leadership of this nation. Anything less is dishonorable and misses the larger point by those incapable of managing cognitive dissonance.

what you say each time. I was hoping you might consider and respond, in contemporary English, the proposal to consider the future.

Making the syntax and rhetoric more florid doesn't make your point deeper. Pretty much the opposite. Hint: it's a bit congested and Faux Heroic.

Looks like Edwards is going to have to proceed without your support.

He'll be fine.

And by the way, nobody is rewarding his vote with their support. They support him in spite of the vote, because they are looking forward, and see in him a hope for peace and global and domestic stability. Let me just say that the most avidly anti-war citizen I know all now support Edwards. You don't. Fine.

is not a problem to me. The Constitution is the Issue here on a broader platform. Edwards co-sponsored a resolution that superseded Congress's responsibilities as defined by the Founding Fathers. That is the Issue. You either hold the Constitution to be protected or you make "allowances" and enable or appease the Executive Branch so they can go off to war wearing other people's Honor. Truth bothers some, but that is what happens when caving for ambition rather than Principle. Principle and holding it aloft is a banner that others cheaply gave away with that IWR vote or trampled it by co-sponsoring the IWR. The principle of the Constitution can not be minimized by those choosing to ignore its Stature in our Democracy. Those who are part-time supporters of the document may choose whomever fits their moral standards of a leader. Those who have abdicated their Sworn Oaths to the constitution know who they are and are in the baby steps and initial stages of acknowledging their mistakes. My standards for Democratic principle will not be cheapened by my vote as too many have died for me to have it. Those who voted yes, gave their honor away to cheaply and the bid to reclaim it via the presidency does not restore what was given away to a known Liar.

A Citizen's vote is the result of Democracy and the blood of those who died to provide it. It is no accident that the Favorite gospel hymm of the Voting Rights Activist Fannie Lous Hamer is my sig line.

by the way, as much as I disagree with what you say, I do love your sig line.

he voted yes and YOU voted for him( I assume)
I'd guess those same forces that led YOU to vote for an AYE voter will re-emerge.

There's no f*ckin way I'm responsible for this f*ckin war...

END IT NOW!!!! Anyone who perpetuates it any further is a coward...no matter which party!

I agree with every word you have posted, & admire your eloquence. You have expressed my thoughts much more
effectively than I could ever hope to.

I couldn't say it better than PC.

these are eloquent and true sentiments about the horrors of war, but they simplify the landscape, and the complexity of the moment. this simplification - which boils down to: If you said yes, you are forever abandoned, and if you voted no, you are forever revered - is easy to embrace, but the deeper, harder construction is through what means, and with what vision we move forward.

Like PithyCherub, I hold the yes votes against those who submitted them. I honor the no votes, and am thankful for them.

If I ended my consideration there, I would be simplifying to the point of inaccuracy, and we can't afford to do that.

Let's be honest, and look closely at candidates. If they voted yes, let's try to understand why. If we can understand, fine. If we can't, that's that. Let's listen to their words with healthy and honest doubt (which they deserve due to their vote), but let's listen to them.

I care about the future, as does PithyCherub, but we differ on how to most peacefully get there.

I desperately wanted Edwards to vote against the IWR. Based on what Tenet told him, he thought lives would be saved by giving teeth to the PROCESS called for in the IWR. that's why he co-sponsored it. He was wrong. He knows that and says that.

He now says, without equivocation: Begin the withdrawal immediately. Don't linger. He is as aggressive an out-of-Iraq proponent as we have on the scene. THAT is what interests me.

Pithy will likely disagree, but I hope that he/she and others will look at the vast complexities, as Edwards has done, painfully. He has as much love of Humanity, and understanding of loss, as do those who voted 'no'.

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

we disagree

At the time of the IWR, 68% of the American people indicated in poll after poll that they didn't want Bush or the Congress to do anything, including passing the IWR, until the inspectors had done their job. In the days leading up to the IWR vote, messages coming into the Congresscritters were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions upon millions of people in the US and worldwide were out in the streets emphatically saying NO to the IWR.

One of the primary duties of any House or Senate member is to represent the collective will of their constituents. Those who voted for the IWR failed to perform that duty, thinking instead of what was best for their party, their corporate backers, their own political hide. This is an abomination, a spectacular failure that has cost hundreds of thousands of innocents their lives, not to mention dragging our country into record breaking debt, and destroying a sovereign country that was no threat to us.

Sorry, no forgetting, no forgiveness. If these people are willing to go against the will of the people on such monumental issue, what makes you think that they won't hesitate to do the same on other, lesser issues.

Screw 'em, if they voted for the IWR, they don't deserve to have any higher office. In fact if they are still in office they should be purged from it. You don't fucking play politics with the lives of innocents, and that is exactly what happened.

voted for the IWR, I see our 2004 presidential hopefuls. I kinda always felt thats why they voted for it. I felt they did not want to seem weak on defense.

But I'm sorry, you don't play political games when peoples' lives are on the future.

Besides, Kerry's vote for the IWR didn't help him now, did it. Awarded multiple medals in service to his country, yet his military record was the victim of succesful smear job. His vote for the IWR didn't help in this matter, and in fact it led to doubts about his credibility on both sides of that fence.

You vote for what's right, and represent the collective will of your constituents. Integrity usually will carry you further than trying to game the situation:shrug:

the IWR was voted on IN ORDER that the inspections continue. It was not a vote to invade. It was a vote to put teeth into the inspections. Bush violated the process. Until people get it in their heads that this is bush's war, there is little constructive that can be said.

There was no mechanism in the IWR to support any inspections.
The inspections were not a relevant matter in the text of the IWR:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(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..


Bush is authorized to use the armed forces as he determines to be necessary. Bush also determines whether peaceful or diplomatic means are adequate or not.
The Congress "supports and encourages the efforts" of enforcing UNSC resolutions. So what? It's meaningless.
Byrd was right. The IWR was a blank check.

the following, which you post, means exactly what I am saying: it means that inspections are there to determine that Iraq is in compliance with UN Resolutions, ie weapons inspectors need to do their work.


(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.



the remainder of what you highlight in bold bush was given (inappropriately, I agree) teeth to pursue this...hence the parts of the IWR about military enforcement.

We do agree, I am sure, that the big problem with the IWR is that the determination as to whether the inspections and diplomatic efforts which were required to precede any use of this 'teeth' was left to bush and his cabal of warmongers. This was a trust that they had never earned, and of which history proves them to be unworthy. That was the fatal error, trusting the executive branch to carry out the letter of the IWR in the spirit in which it was framed.

My point is that those who voted for the IWR voted naively, giving bush and cheney a trust they should not have. but the vote was for a process, not an invasion. Some who voted truly believed, at the word of Tenet, that if Saddam did not comply, there would be WMD let loose in the US. They were wrong. Tenet was lying.

I think we are not in fundamental disagreement, just not reading the shadings the same.

The main flaw of the IWR was "encouraging and supporting" the efforts described rather than making them a legal requirement for authorization.
I also agree that it was not a vote "for war" per se, but it did leave that determination to Bush, which was a big mistake.
Sadly, I don't think Bush ever had the slightest intention of pursuing peaceful and diplomatic means.

of letting the inspectors do their job. That is the flaw in the IWR, that bush did not have to go back to congress to pull the trigger, as Levin wanted.

In fact, it was when the inspection teams began to make the reassuring noises to the effect that there were no WMD, he promptly and precipitously pulled them so he could wallow in the crime against humanity known as 'Shock and Awe'.

that, to me, is a criminal and impeachable offense. It is even a war crime, IMO.

There is the reason that cheney pulled the US from the International War Crimes Tribunal - he knew he was intent on war crimes.

And around the world saw the IWR for what it was, a permit for Bushboy to go to war, with little more than promises and frothy language restraining his bloodlust. And yet those Dems who voted for that abomination didn't see this? If that is the case, then one could make the arguement that these people are simply too stupid to serve in D.C.:shrug: However I'll be a bit kinder, and simply assume that they put their political career ahead of everything else, and voted accordingly.

Yet none of this changes the fact that these so called leaders failed to fulfill one of their primary duties, and that is to be the collective voice for their constituents. They could read the polls, they were getting plenty of feedback from their constituents, they knew that around the country and around the world, millions of people were out in the street, every single one of us screaming as loud and as clearly as we knew how to "VOTE NO ON THE IWR!" And yet, out of sheer political considerations, these people voted YES.

Do we want somebody who is that willing to ignore the will of the people, somebody who is that callous towards the fate of millions of innocents, somebody who is that self centered occupying the highest office in the land?

I certainly don't.

of those who voted for the IWR.

for the record, I was one of the millions in the street, repeatedly.

I just think that it is wrong, and not helpful, to say that those who voted yes are callous to the fate of millions. they are not callous, but chose a way with which we disagree. they are no less concerned about human life than are you and I, even if they made a mistake in trusting bush.

let's not forget that this really is bush's war.

and let's lilsten to what people are saying now. believe them or not, but listen.

(BTW, I love Desmond Dekker, cuz he "get up every morning slaving for bread, sir...so that every mouth can be fed". You know he died recently? Sad,)

:shrug:

This is why Bush pushed for the IWR vote to come right before the '02 election. He wanted to force these people to take their political career into consideration. He knew he had the RW media echo chamber in his corner, and thus had a huge cudgel in his hand to beat those who voted against the IWR.

And yes, those who voted for the IWR were indeed putting their political careers ahead of peoples' lives. Too simple, not really. This has been done time and again before, remember Vietnam?

Yet it wouldn't bother me so much if it isn't for the fact that there are many of these Senators etc. that continued to support the Iraq war, despite the increasing signs of a disaster and the evergrowing public opion against the war. The name Hillary comes to mind one this one, among others.

And as we've seen with Kerry, a vote for the IWR, even though it is later regretted, is a huge chinck in the political armor that can and will be exploited by the opposition.

And yes, this IS Bushboy's war. But he wouldn't have been able to initiate it, nor prosecute it with such vigor if it wasn't for all of the Democratic enablers who not only put politics ahead of their job description and voted for the IWR, but who continue to support the war by voting time and again for the funding measures that keep this war going, and keep driving us further into debt, all against the rising tide of people who want the war to end NOW.

Too simple, perhaps, but most fundemental truths are quite simple. Fire is hot, ice is cold, and politicians are willing to put their political careers ahead of pretty much damn near anything, including the massive loss of human life. This truism has been proven time and again, and it is for that sort of callousness, that lack of response to peoples' wishes, that sort of self centeredness that I will never, ever again vote for a member of Congress who voted not only for the IWR, but continued to support it against the will of the people. It comes down to a matter of trust, and those sort of people I simply cannot trust with the highest office in the land.

If you like Desmond Dekker(RIP), I think that you would love this boxed set; "This is Reggae Music, The Golden Years 1960-1975<http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:This%20Is%20Reggae%20Music%3A%20Golden%20Era%201960-1975%20%2F%20Var:1922069877;_ylc=X3oDMTB1bTRuODM0BF9TAzk2NjMyOTA3BHNlYwNmZWVkBHNsawNtdXNpYw--> Covers mento, ska, reggae, rocksteady, artists from Dekker to Lord Tannamo to Marley and Cliff. An excellent compilation set from the old Trojan Records collection.

Yeah, that's the kind of profile in courage I want as a president. No fucking way I'm voting for any of them.

with majorities in both houses of congress, what they do from
this point on is much more important than how we got here.

thank you

And I don't see why the voters for the thing must hang by their thumbs for all eternity for the mistake of voting for it. What must they do exactly?

And I think that it's overly simplistic to say that those who voted for were reflecting popular sentiment and that those who voted again were voting their conscience. I think that those who were for or against had their reasons beyond that. Some voted in cowardice. Some voted their conscience and were wrong.

It was a snapshot in time, and just as I'm not a one issue voter on other subjects, I don't see why a vote for the thing automatically disqualifies the person for all eternity. Each person who voted for the IWR must be judged by their actions before and after. It is a factor in looking at the person, but not the only one.

i agree with much of what you said ...

it's a funny term, though, that many use: "one issue voters" ...

if i refused to vote for someone who won't stand up for publically financed campaigns, am i a one issue voter?
what if i also won't vote for someone who gets mega-money from the defense industry or from big oil?
how about if i also won't vote for war supporters?
what about if i also won't vote for "moderates" who didn't accept the results of their own party's primary and chose to run against the Democrats?
how about if i also won't vote for a supporter of the WTO or NAFTA?
what if i also won't vote for someone who won't support absolute equality for all citizens?

it's a tricky business this "one issue voter" label ... in one perspective, you are a "one issue voter" if you only vote based on a single issue (e.g. the war); in another perspective, you are not a "one issue voter" if you care deeply about many issues and would eliminate a candidate over any one of them ...

ruling out a candidate because you don't support how they handled the war in Iraq does not necessarily make you a "one issue voter" ... btw, i see nothing wrong with being a "one issue voter" even in the strictest sense of the term ... each of us has the right to prioritize the issues any way we choose ...

would have been closer, though more awkward.

One issue voting fits better if you're talking about, say, pro-life issues.

One vote voter means I'm not going to use just one vote such as the IWR as my one criteria that determines who I will vote for as president, as in "If he was too stupid to see what was going on with that one vote I don't think he should be president". To easy, too narrow, for me anyway. I have to look at the whole person.

you said: "i have to look at the whole person" ... phrased another way, it might be fair to infer that you are saying that you would not weight one issue or one vote so heavily that it would enable you to make an assessment on "the whole person" ...

but others might reasonably draw a conclusion based on one event or one vote depending on their framework and their values ... calling someone an ethnic slur leaps to mind ... is it somehow more judicious to "view the whole person" than it is to conclude that person is a bigot and does not deserve your vote or your support?

it seems to me either path is perfectly reasonable and is very subjective based on your individual values ... perhaps you are not a member of the target of the slur and you're willing to see it as an isolated incident or perhaps the slur was directed at your race or religion or sexual orientation ...

personally, i prefer NOT to choose between a multi-issue approach and a single issue approach ... we should just respect that each of us will form our opinions based on our individual values ... it certainly doesn't mean we should agree with the conclusions reached but just that assessing candidates on 5 factors or 10 or a million is NOT necessarily any better than assessing a candidate based on what any person might consider their single most important factor ...

and sometimes, what might appear to be a single issue is, in essence, many, many issues ... for example, the war could be viewed as dozens of issues ... why do mostly the poor serve? why don't we provide adequate benefits to soldiers when they return? how can we spend such outrageous amounts when our own cities are in decay and we have so many problems here at home? how can we balance the budget while prosecuting such an expensive war? why are the media so restricted in what they are able to disclose about the occupation? why couldn't we find out what happened in Cheney's energy meetings that i believe laid the blueprint for war and sold our country out to the oil industry? what about a windfall profits tax on the industry record oil revenues made since the invasion? what about a draft? does Congress have the right to defer to bush without specifically declaring war? you get the idea ... is the war really just a "single issue"? ... not to me ...

people will have to judge for themselves how to weight the issues during the next election cycle ... if a gay man wants to vote only on that issue, i'm OK with that ... if a mom with her only son in Iraq wants to see the war end and votes for an anti-war candidate based only on that one issue, no problem there ... if a parent has kids in the public schools and they hate the impact of NCLB and vote based only on that, I understand ...

it's hard for me to get my head around the idea that "more issues" (i.e. quantity) is somehow "better" than "fewer issues" (e.g. intensity on one issue) ... in the end, i see the whole process of voting as highly subjective and that's how it should be ... being aware of more factors rather than fewer factors is always a good idea; the more we know the better we can choose ... but i would not equate "knowing more" to how we ultimately "weight" the factors ... once we've seen the whole picture, then we can choose whether we like it or not based on one or more factors ...

simple and clear. I agree.

Just as opposing Bush's troop surge does matter.

If we don't hold our public officials accountable for their actions or their votes, then we might as well pack our bags and move to a country that cares about its freedoms.

all those people whose perspective was NOT reflected by that vote are not considered "the general public." Whoever that is.

I guess I can never trust a rep to cast a correct vote for anything or against anything as long as there are some who claim that their pov represents that of "the general public." :eyes:

As long as reps don't need a conscience, just some poll to tell them what the "approved" "general public" view is, I don't need to ever vote again.

:sarcasm:

and to get PATRIOT and other violations of our civil liberties. As in Nazi Germany, there were many people that helped Bush to get where he is today. Just a few months ago, Senate Democrats voted against Kerry/Feingold troop withdrawal resolution, and a bit earlier than that, Hillary Clinton spoke against John Murtha's for daring to say the war was lost and we needed to bring our troops home.

Powell sold it. All were Republicans.

Americans were lied to by the Bush administration. We were a country that was drunk on the Kool-Aid. Democratic politicians had to navigate through the bullshit to keep the party afloat. Dems like Max Cleland got tossed out of office for opposing Bush policy.

Democrats didn't dream up this war OR the Patriot Act. Bush/Rove and the corporate media forced it down the throat of Joe Sixpack. Dems and Republicans acted accordingly.

it represents a critical lack of judgement. I can forgive, I will not forget, and I would have a hard time trusting future decisions made by those who misjudged on the IWR vote.

The IWR vote has a direct bearing on whether or not we can trust our leaders. Many many people knew it was a raw deal and still voted yes for political purposes. They should be held accountable. Each and every time they ask for our votes.

It is chucklenuts war - He wanted it; he started planning it before he took office; he chose extreme rong wing neo-cons to fabricate the reasons to invade a country that posed NO threat to the US. Some of us KNEW it was all lies - that is why we were in the streets, sending emails, writing letters and phoning our representatives.

You may decide to own it, I will and do not.

b**hie's war has destroyed the economy, been used to shred the constitution; kicked the Geneva Conventions to the curb. Nope, it is ALL his, he has/d the power to stop it and has not. He owns the entire mess.

Good judgment -or lack thereof.

These folks weren't "misled." Credible and well respected analysts knew that damn near everything that the administration and their corporate media hack put forth was patently false- and they also foresaw what would happen as a consequence of that vote.

Personally, I don't want ANYONE who lacks courage and good judgment in the Whitehouse- whether they have a D behind their name or not. In fact, it's quite possible that if the Dems nominate one, I'll abstain or vote 3rd party- just as (by that time) many millions of other people will too.

If they like somebody, it doesn't matter; if they like somebody else, it matters more than anything in the world, no matter that every Dem potential except maybe Kucinich is on record as having supported the illegal war on Saddam whether they were in a position to vote on the IWR or not.

And so it goes.

"those who voted for it reflected the general feeling of the public, and those who voted against it voted their conscience despite the same general public acquiescence."

The reason we have a representative republic as opposed to a direct democracy is that we elect people who are supposed to do all the information gathering that we are not able to and make difficult decisions on our behalf. The founders understood one thing, the masses are asses and the "will of the people" isn't always the best thing, so they made sure there was a buffer between public opinion and actual decisions.

Now, sometimes, it is important to listen to the will of the people and try something the masses want. Although I wasn't around at the time, I am guessing prohibition had popular support, until it failed so miserably and then they took it away. Prohibition is the type of thing you "try out" because people want it, because it doesn't necessarily lead to people dying (although it wound up doing so as an effect of the crime created, but it was not a defacto outcome.)

The outcome of war is that people die. Period. Once you make the decision to support war, you are supporting death. Bending to the "general feeling of the public" to enable killing? No, no, no, no and NO. If you bent to the "general feeling of the public" in order to vote yes on a war resolution or co-sponsor a war resolution, you are DISQUALIFIED as a representative, because you have proven to me that when lives are on the line, you cannot be counted on to do the right thing and that is objectively analyze the evidence and allow war as a last resort only.

All evidence suggested there were no WMD's in Iraq (Inspectors on the ground, Scott Ritter, etc..). All evidence suggested that Iraq was not a threat to us. There was simply no evidence upon which to base a yes vote on the IWR.

At the end of the day, you are right about one thing, this is now the US' war; however, those who voted for it and/or supported it along the way have proven their inability to make decisions and, as such, will NEVER receive a vote or money from me, EVER AGAIN. My vote for John Kerry was the last vote that will ever go to a candidate who voted for the war.

the Iraq War mess is the political opportunity of a generation.

The one who gets credit for coming up with a sensible plan of where do we go from here(that can be agreed upon) will be lauded far and wide.I hope its a dem.


I don't think "get out now" is it.



I don't think it will matter how that person voted on the IWR, If he/she can meaningfully contribute to the "what now?" question

It's about winning elections, "political opportunity" as you say.

To me, it's about all the fine young Americans who were sent to war, based on a lie.

Tell the families about "political opportunity."

Sorry, I don't think you are clever at all.

you pounding your chest over and over, proclaiming your moral superiority over those that accept the political realities of the situation?

I don't know where I made those posts.

I proclaim no moral superiority

However I do have the right to express my opinion here just like any other DUer.

And my opinion is that this is about war, & war is about dying.

And the lives of our soldiers & the Iraqi people are more important than politics.

"To me, it's about all the fine young Americans who were sent to war, based on a lie.

Tell the families about "political opportunity.""

--------------------

And conversely - seeing the political aspects of the situation precludes one from feeling your same sense of moral outrage.

I'm familiar with your postings on this board, and this theme is a common one.


---------------------------------


"And my opinion is that this is about war, & war is about dying.

And the lives of our soldiers & the Iraqi people are more important than politics."


- do you have a solution to this war that doesn't involve "politics"? That doesn't involve winning elections?

& then it was my reply.

And no, I haven't posted very much about this situation; perhaps you have me confused with someone else with a similar avatar.

To answer you question, my solution for the war would be an all out diplomatic effort in the region, bringing in all available parties who are affected by the situation.

The Mideast is heading for disaster, & our troops cannot solve the problems. I don't consider diplomacy the same as politics. Syria, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, etc must be brought into the solutions. Lebannon is teetering & must be given attention, & the underlying issue of all in the region: Israel & the Palestinians.

I don't see this as "politics" or "elections."

In this Admin the State Dept functions as a tool of Bush's military ambitions; the most blatent disregard for diplomacy that I have ever seen.

"all out diplomatic effort in the region" from the current administration?

That's where politics and elections come in.

I happen to agree that "get out now" doesn't work, since it is a problem we have created, which means we bear the responsibility to fix it. Further, it is true that the person who comes up with the plan that gets us out will be lauded, but contributing to that plan is NOT dependent upon the IWR vote. In fact, it would be better if one of those idiots who voted for the IWR does contribute, since it is their mess. One does not have to be President to contribute to the solution.

However, the IWR vote is an excellent litmus test by which to judge one's ability to lead. Those who bent to pressure and decided to listen to the amophorphous lies of the administration over the actual evidence offered by the inspectors on the ground have disqualified themselves as potential leaders.

There are some mistakes that can be fogiven... a mistake that directly leads to the mass killing of innocent people isn't one of them.

are pursuing what they think is right, or what they think is popular.

if it's the politicall popular thing to do?

I know that Obama and Kucinich won't.

A "shut up and vote" thread. We'll be seeing these right up to the 2008 election. I'm all a-twitter.

Seriously, somebody hasn't been paying attention OR has their head so far up the beltway ass they didn't notice that a quiet revolution is in progress.