Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

My Impartial Take On The Iraq War Vote

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:12 PM
Original message
My Impartial Take On The Iraq War Vote
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 01:19 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
Carol Mosely Braun, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton flat out opposed it.....

Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt supported it without reservations....

John Edwards and John Kerry reluctantly supported it... IMHO, they were in the toughest political spot...They really believed that by giving Bush the option to use force they were actually making the use of force unlikely.... They made two wrong assumptions... That Saddam would cave and that war wasn't the only solution Bushco wanted....

Wes Clark and Howard Dean had the same nuanced position as Mr.'s Edwards and Kerry. They would have supported an invasion if it was under the color of a United Nations mandate.... and believed the threat of force actually made the use of force more unlikely....

All this seems to get lost in the political thicket and good folks are having their reputations besmirched...

on edit- everybody made the mistake of believing Bush... No imminent threat, no wmds, no warm welcome....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yep! You said it!
Couple that with the climate of intimidation. Not doing so could have cost them their jobs. Fortunately the climate seems to have changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm not sure about Edwards
From DU I have read he was gung-ho about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I'd Have To See The Article...
I really belive that Gephardt and Lieberman did so enthusiastically.....

That's not to knock them... Just stating the obvious....


In retrospect, nobody had a post-victory plan....

You broke it... You bought it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yea, Gephardt was a strong supporter
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 01:26 PM by quinnox
That was clear from his Hardball appearance a few days ago.

Here is what I found on Edwards web site:

"Reconstruct Iraq:

In Iraq, Edwards supported the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and he has been an outspoken proponent of a strong US commitment to help the Iraqi people rebuild their lives and develop rule of law and democracy.

Edwards believes that the United States cannot rebuild Iraq alone, and must bring other countries and institutions into this important effort."

I don't think Edwards was a reluctant supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. We're Conflating Two Things
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 01:37 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
Support for the war and support for the resolution.....

IMHO, Edwards and Kerry supported the resolution hoping it would make war more unlikely....

But the vote was a binary thing and they didn't get to set the conditions and the timetable....

I think that's where Wes Clark got himself in trouble....

He has a nuanced position and nuanced positions are difficult to reduce to a soundbite...

Like Dean he belived Sadaam was a bad man who was being kept in a box by the U N sanctions regime and the no fly zone and it would be a "nice" thing if he was removed...

But the need to remove him wasn't immediate and if he was to be removed it should be under the color of a U N mandate....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quinnox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. On the nuanced
Yea, that's true, they don't make good soundbites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. he wasn't a relucant supporter, but he did lobby for them
to slow the build up and try to go through NATO, after France made it clear the UN was possible

but your right that he thought Saddam needed to step down or be removed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I don't know that he was gung ho at the time,
but I heard him address a student group in North Carolina, just prior to the invasion and he was very supportive of the war effort. The crowd grew silent after giving him a rock star welcome, but he forged ahead with rhetoric on the danger presented by Saddam, the need to go in, etc.

He could have taken a firm "it looks like we are going in, and the right thing to do right now is support our men and women over there in their efforts".

He did talk a bit about that he believed the president should have worked harder for international cooperation - and this clearly seperates him from Lieberman/Gephardt.

And he may have been more critical/nuanced/somber/torn at the time of the vote.

For all but Lieberman/Gephardt (and Bayh), I have a greater tolerance of the unique and difficult situation in the context of the vote. I remain critical, but could get over it in being supportive of a candidate (I am a realist, afterall).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Lieberman
I think there is no doubt about Lieberman, as in many ways he is more republican then some republicans.. Either regarding Iraq, or Israel or any number of issues that are far from liberal or fair...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I Don't Think Joe Is A Republican
I think his bark (rhetoric) is worse than his bite (voting record)....

I do think his gung ho support of Iraq War 2 was a loser....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. On October 6, 2002, just before the IWR vote, Dean said
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 01:42 PM by w4rma

Speaking at a fundraising dinner filled with activists wary about going to war again in the Persian Gulf again, Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.), and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean highlight the spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party as lawmakers in Washington prepare to vote on a resolution authorizing war.

Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."

http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. He Was Prescient
for sure....


but I don't think he was in the same category as AS, DK, and CMB who opposed the war under all circumstances...

I believe he supported the sanction regime and the no fly zone and is on the record of supporting an invasion ubder the color of the U N...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Nobody here understands the main goal
the wmd/imminent threat thing was clearly chosen for PR purpouses, but that was only a minor possibility and not a main motivating factor, and of course many here believe that oil/defense profits are the main motivating reason, but that is clearly really more of what they look at as a perk

the basic reason for regime change is a strategic base of operations for the ulimate goal of democratizing and liberalizing the middle east and putting pressure on all middle east governments, particularly the Saudi's, who now don't have the same oil monopoly power, and Iran, which will be surrounded by pro-western arabs and could easily go that way, -- to force these governments to take care of there own terrorism.

You may not agree with it, but you have to accept that that is the basic supporting reason for congressional support, both dem and republican, and nobody talks about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. That's The Whole PNAC Template Or Paradigm
That a democratic Iraq would be a model for the Middle East and that the opponents of Israel would lose a major benefactor....

Anybody who believed that is so naive that I shudder to believe they are actually yielding power....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. what makes you less naive exactly
please elaborate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Happy To
I am a realist when it comes to human affairs... As Edmund Burke said" we must take man as he is not the way we want him to be."
The PNACers want to build a democratic Iraq. What's their model. There's not one liberal democracy in the Middle East...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maggrwaggr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
15. I will not let anyone slide on that
and I don't care what anybody says.

It was the most perfect example of the kind of pussy-assed bullshit that professional politicians engage in.

They're all having 20-20 hindsight now, saying "gosh, I really thought it was a bad idea, that's not really what I meant when I voted to give

THIS PITBULL the authority to be let off his fucking LEASH.

Screw all these people. Throw them all out. I don't give a SHIT what they say now.

You can't make undead all the dead people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. Flawed analysis
INHO. How can you possibly know what Kerry or Edwards believed. You can only know what they say they believed.

Second of all, a close reading of all of Dean's statements from September 2002 until the present, demonstrate that Dean did not believe there was an imminent threat to the US. He repeated this numerous times. And he said it- and says it- strongly.

I don't know enough about Clark. I'm confused by his statements. Particularly the one to the NH candddate last fall when he said he would vote for such a resolution.

Everybody fooled by Bush. Excuse me, I don't mean to be rude or dismissive, but this is utter bullshit. For God's sake go read some of the speeches of those who voted no. 23 of them did. Really, you need to read Leahy, Byrd, Jeffords and others to see how clearly these guys called it. And why wasn't Kerry with his good friends and ideolgical soulmates in the Seanate? And oh yeah, I knew and millions of my fellow americans also knew. Speaking out against Bush's rush to war, as Senator Byrd called it, was the duty of every one of us.

I like Edwards, I've long admired Kerry and their votes don't mean I can't support them, but I hate revisionist history.

As far as you being impartial goes, I don't see that at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. I Stand By My Original Post
I wasn't trying to rehabilitate any candidate....

And I do know that Howard Dean supported the sanction regime and the no fly zone and is on the record as supporting an invasion if it it was done under the color of a U N mandate....

I don't have any dog in this fight but as a logical proposition I don't see how a unjust war becomes becauses a just one because the combatants are wearing U N helmets...

As for the wmds the opposition was based on alot of things but even the opponents thought he had wmds....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NicoleM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. wrong
"As for the wmds the opposition was based on alot of things but even the opponents thought he had wmds...."

Some people didn't. Scott Ritter, for one, who would be in a position to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. It Looks Like Scott Ritter May Be Right
but most folks thought Saddam had wmds at the time....


I didn't say everybody....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuushew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. Is there some reason you left out Bob Graham?
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 02:28 PM by wuushew
By voting no its not clear to me if he supported a Kerry type position or a PNAC destroy the entire middle east Lieberman policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bombtrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. How can you say Lieberman wants to destroy the middle east?
there is nothing to support that claim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. It wasn't POSSIBLE to believe that Bushco didn't want war. Thus your
analysis of the positions of Kerry, Edwards, Clark & Dean seems way too generous to that group. Calling this position "nuanced" is quite fashionable on DU lately, I notice -- and that's no compliment. It's the application of an upscale word to a butt-ugly thing: caving in to considerations of political expediency.

There are differences among the 4. Kerry & Edwards were about in the same place -- both scared of the political repercussions if they voted no, both having their eyes on the presidential race (and Edwards, knowing he had to represent his NC constituency, while Kerry didn't even have that excuse). Clark: to call this guy's position "antiwar" is simply an insult to antiwar people everywhere. Dean: "Anti-war Lite" -- not against US militarism or imperialism at all -- in fact, unwilling to even speak about such topics -- but correctly recognized that the case for action in Iraq was not close to being adequately made. He deserves credit for guts and being right, as well as criticism for the "Lite" nature of his opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. But we are in fundamental agreement
that the purists were DK, AS, and CMB.....

The arguments of all the rest on the narcisissm of small differences....

As I said I don't see how a unjust war becomes a just war because the combatants are wearing U N helmets....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. That pretty much nails it, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. It could have been
I was rather floored when I saw that the President was going to go ahead with war plans anyway after I got back from the March protest in DC this year. I seriously did think that we wasn't THAT stupid as to go in with such a lacking of broad popular and international support. There was a British guy I spoke with while I was in the airport waiting for my plane while we watched CNN and his take on it was that we needed the armed forces there as a sort of leverage to get Sadaam to cooperate, and he seriously did not believe that Bush would start something. Here on DU it might have been obvious that there would be war, but there was a lot of room for doubting of that position among most people. I think that very few intelligent individuals seriously thought that he would go to war considering the stakes, and I'm fairly sure that is what Clark, Dean, and Kerry were thinking with their statements. They honsetly probably didn't think Bush would do something THAT stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I Knew The Dye Was Cast In October
but I am willing to give folks the benefit of a doubt....

The idea of using the threat of force to avoid having to use force makes sense as a logical proposition....

But I would never accuse Bushco of being logicians...


PNAC seems to me to be more like a religion than a plan....


And for the record I consider myself a liberal realist when it comes to the use of force. That nations will act in the own naked self interest but there needs to be checks on the avarice of nations or we will be consigned to endless conflict....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. Did you watch any of the debates
on the Senate floor in the lead up to the IWR?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yep
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 03:07 PM by DemocratSinceBirth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. PNAC = The Crusades
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
33. Most people
I have not made the mistake of believing Bush. Not during the campaign nor during his term.

His lack of trustworthiness on this and a myriad of issues was readily apparent to anyone looking for it. How men that fashion themselves as leaders were blind to it confounds me.

Perhaps they were less blinded than they let on.
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 Mon Sep 01st 2014, 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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