Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anyone who voted for the war should not be supported for President

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
G2099 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:50 PM
Original message
Anyone who voted for the war should not be supported for President
If they did not have the guts to stand up and say NO back than, then don't come to us now and ask for our support. They should have had the guts to support the people by standing up for the TRUTH.

Let support for the war be the limp-mus test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Baloney. Impeach the assholes who lied to everyone. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yoda Yada Donating Member (474 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Double Balooney...I agree.
Don't support Bushco AND those who support the Bush administration.

They are the ones who lied to us AND lied to Congress.


"If any question why we died, tell them because our fathers lied"
( from Rudyard Kipling's "Epitaphs of the War")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. No one voted for the war.
There was no vote for war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. you're delusional if you really believe that....
A bill authorizing congressional authority to use force carries the same weight as a full declaration of war under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Many Americans don't understand that, but you can bet your bippie that congress does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Thanks for pointing that out. The Congress knew EXACTLY what they
were voting for. And every one of them who voted "yes" should be removed from office in the next election.

No matter their record on other matters, if they voted yes on going to war, they should be removed. Period. They betrayed their country.

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. However, You Have To Admit That Bush Had His Own Timetable
that congress couldn't have agreed to.

they agreed to the use of force if necessary.

necessary was not proven

force was used anyhow.

so I'm delusional too.

what state are you licensed as a mental health professional in, and do you do diagnosis by forum posts only? Or do you have an office as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. you are still unfamiliar with the blank check that Congress gave Bush....
Edited on Fri Mar-24-06 10:16 PM by mike_c
The IWR has been posted on DU numerous times and it's available online with a simple google search. You really should read it. Then read a summary of the WPR-- Wikipedia has a good one. Bush was not required to prove ANYTHING. The IWR expressed congress' agreement with EVERY argument the WH made in favor of war. None of which matters in the end because under the WPR the IWR was the equivalent of a full declaration of war-- note that Article 4 of the IWR even acknowledges this explicitly.

READ THE IWR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No, I'm Quite Familiar with the Iraq War Resolution
And I just disagree that it gave carte blanche power to Bush to attack whenever he wanted to without there being the justification necessary to do it.

If they did know then they are cowards

many of them are and signed onto that IWR only because of mid term elections and the Rovian fear of being labeled "soft" on terror.

But as other posters have said, they were all lied to by this administration, and I just don't see the war as being authorized by that document.

So, I'm sure you are a "nice" guy, but calling people delusional, etc. doesn't win any points with me. But somehow I doubt you are looking for points.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. show us the money....
Edited on Fri Mar-24-06 10:21 PM by mike_c
Please quote the article and section where you think the IWR required Bush to prove anything or do anything further before invading. IT DOESN'T EXIST. Article 3 is the only one that required anything of Bush, and that only required that he send a letter to Congress within 48 hours of invading, which he did. That article even specified what the letter had to say, and Bush simply quoted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G2099 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Check out post #7
Who can beat that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well, I would like to hear a dem say he or she was wrong...
that if they had to do it again knowing what they know now, they wouldn't. That would help in getting my support.

John Edwards did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Kerry did in October 2005:
Read his speech at Georgetown University, here:

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764

snip//
Let’s be straight about Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not the reason America went to war. The country and the Congress were misled into war. 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. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. 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. I understand that as much as we might wish it, we can’t rewind the tape of history. There is, as Robert Kennedy once said, ‘enough blame to go around,’ and I accept my share of the responsibility. But the mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally. We are where we are. The President’s flippant “bring it on” taunt to the insurgents has found a meaning beyond his wildest expectations, a painful reality for troops who went for too long without protective armor. We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure, and the mission the President once declared accomplished remains perilously incomplete. To set a new course, we must be strong, smart, and honest. As we learned painfully during the Vietnam War, no president can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed and nearly to the breaking point because Americans will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes or rosy scenarios when real answers are urgently needed. It’s time for leaders to be honest that if we do not change course, there is the prospect of indefinite, even endless conflict - a fate untenable for our troops, and a future unacceptable to the American people and the Iraqis who pray for the day when a stable Iraq will belong to Iraqis alone. The path forward will not be easy. The administration’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been. The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military. When after September 11th, flags flew from porches across America and foreign newspaper headlines proclaimed “We’re all Americans now,” the Administration could have kept the world united, but they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they pushed allies away, isolated America, and lost leverage we desperately need today. When they could have demanded and relied on accurate instead of manipulated intelligence, they chose not to. They were wrong - and instead they sacrificed our credibility at home and abroad. When they could have given the inspectors time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, when they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson’s report, they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead they attacked him, and they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq. We don’t know yet whether this will prove to be an indictable offense in a court of law, but for it, and for misleading a nation into war, they will be indicted in the high court of history. History will judge the invasion of Iraq one of the greatest foreign policy misadventures of all time. But the mistakes were not limited to the decision to invade. They mounted, one upon another. When they could have listened to General Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were wrong again. When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam Hussein’s ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were wrong. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders, said Baghdad was safer than Washington, D.C. and chose not to act. He was wrong. When the Administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and individual countries to provide on the ground peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. They were wrong. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the “insurgency was in its last throes.” He was wrong. Now after all these mistakes, the Administration accuses anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. But we are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run. This administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from sound intelligence and good diplomacy; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible war time planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history’s lessons about the Middle East; to cut and run from common sense.

And still today they cut and run from the truth.

snip//
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. note too that Kerry did NOT say...
..."I didn't think I was voting for a war." Only the most clueless of congress critters with an utterly incompetent staff wouldn't have known that under the WPR, an "authorization to use force" is tantamount to a full declaration of war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. And in 2004, but people will selectively believe whichever RW BS they like
because there are all sorts of flavors of Kool-Aid.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynatnite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Thank you...
I forgot about that! Didn't he and Edwards come out about the same time on this? I don't remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. I don't honestly know the timeline. All I know is what Kerry said,
and that got little if any fanfare. When Edwards 'came out', and I think it was a bit later, he got more coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. No One VOTED FOR THE WAR
that is RNC speak

the resolution they voted on gave the administration to use force if necessary, it didn't guarantee "war", and it wasn't a "war resolution"

So I disagree with your premise from the word go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I gotta agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. lies and spin-- see #7 above....
Edited on Fri Mar-24-06 09:59 PM by mike_c
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Delusional here, see #20 above Mike C. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why punish someone for being lied to? Impeach the liar instead nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. They lied to me. And I knew they were.
And so did a lot of people who opposed military action.

So how did we know, and so many in Congress didn't? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'd agree if I didn't know what a bizarre world exists within the
Edited on Fri Mar-24-06 09:59 PM by Warpy
I-495 beltway around DC. It's a world heavily populated with the greatest "experts" in the world, and all those experts were lobbying heavily for this stupid war, waving forged proof of Saddam Hussein's perfidy and his huge stash of banned weapons. I find it perfectly understandable that Congress voted for giving Stupid war powers AFTER the inspections had finished and IF they had turned up anything in the way of banned weapons. Don't forget also that Stupid failed to meet the conditions of the vote. He just kicked the UN out and invaded. Period.

I don't think anybody who STILL supports this war is qualified to run for office, though. We don't want to vote for the corrupt, the delusional, or the stupid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. Man am I sick of this right-wing talking point
And I'm sick of hearing who should NOT be supported, and who people will NEVER support, and which Democrat has no spine, or testicles, or whatever the infantile term of the day is.

Just for a change, I'd like to log on to Democratic Underground and hear LESS RW smears of the Democrats than I do on Fox News.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kerry fan Donating Member (351 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Hear! Hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue neen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G2099 Donating Member (500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
16. Ok, I should have said "support" the war instead of "voted" for it
Other then that one word "voted," my argument still stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
18. I'm voting for the "lied to" before the "lying" - personally.
We'll see who gets the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
19. I agree!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
24. We need to let non internet users decide that n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. That's Part II
Part I is get Dems in power, kick out repubs. After that, we can worry about weeding out our own party.

If we try to do both at once, we may just give them more years at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
32. Well *that* would cull the heard! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-24-06 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. Locking
This thread has quickly become a flame-fest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC