so Schumer said the same thing Kerry did during the campaign

[still_one]

He was asked knowing what he knows now would he have still voted to give bush authorization to go into Iraq?

He said yes

Sorry, but it is time to purge the party, and elect people who represent what the party stands for

After everything that has happened, and there are still democrats who would do the same thing?

Ed Schultz played the exerprt from the Sunday talk show schumer was on

What an extreme disappointment

[LSparkle]

1. I was MAJORLY disappointed when he said that ...

Why can't these guys come out and say they were duped? What's so hard about admitting that Shrubya pulled the wool over their eyes?

[still_one]

9. maybe there are some dems who belong to PNAC?

[Carolab]

49. Or who are on the same team, regardless? Look at the PPI.

It's basically the same thing, but calls for multinational rather than unilateral warmongering.

[still_one]

55. what does PPI stand for? Thanks

[Carolab]

56. Progressive Policy Institute aka "the Third Way".

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

{snip}

The PPI publishes reports and documents that bolster the Democratic Leadership Council’s positions, including the DLC’s support for the invasion of Iraq and a more confrontational approach to relations with North Korea and Iran. Although the institute largely reflects the neoconservative positions on foreign and military policy, it has a more favorable view of multilateralism as a principle of foreign policy and rejects the argument that a missile defense system is necessary for U.S. national security. (7) (8)

Like PNAC and the Bush administration, the Progressive Policy Institute has a vision of national security that extends to fostering democracy and freedom around the world in “the belief that America can best defend itself by building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy.” It’s likely that PNAC itself would heartily agree with PPI’s criticism of those who complain that “the Bush administration has been too radical in recasting America’s national security strategy.” In fact, in assessing the Bush administration’s foreign policy agenda, the institute stated, “we believe it has not been ambitious enough or imaginative enough.” (9))

The statement, according to the PPI media release, “takes issue with left-wing activists who routinely call for deep cuts in military spending, reflexively oppose the use of force, and embrace an anti-trade, anti-globalization agenda that would damage the U.S. economy and condemn developing nations to perpetual poverty.” According to the report, "Progressive internationalism occupies the vital center between the neo-imperial right and the non-interventionist left, between a view that assumes that our might always makes us right and one that assumes that because America is strong it must be wrong." (9)

[still_one]

63. Wow

There are still quite a few people in the country who don't even know what PANC is, and now we also have the PPI

[Carolab]

68. It's been around a long time--since 1989. The Blueprint is from 2003.

Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that “America is threatened once again” and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation--“like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades”--mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and Saddam Hussein’s government was “undermining both collective security and international law.” (9)

[bahrbearian]

87. Your avatar looks alot like this pic

Wouldn't be Wooly would it

[Carolab]

92. If Wooly is a Latin American populist, then yes. n/t

[bahrbearian]

102. Actually , Wooly is Lisa's dog, at "Allhatnocattle.com"

[Carolab]

104. Is Lisa a Latin American populist? n/t

[kath]

119. Some Dem last week actually said "I was wrong" re the Blank Check

Resolution. I wish that person could give the lame-ass Dems a lesson in how to form their lips around those words: "okay, repeat after me - 'I. Was. Wrong.' - that's 'wrong', not rrrruh,ruh,ruh... c'mon, now, get the word out. You can do it! WRONG."

Gack, it made me *apoplectic* to hear Schumer say that on whatever gasbag show it was yesterday. He voted for it 'cuz he didn't want to look weak in the "War on Terror". "War on Terror", my ass. Came here to find a thread on it, but there was none.
Gawd, it's embarrassing to be a Dem and have people like Schumer "representing" us.

[electropop]

2. I heard him too (C-Span replay)

What a loser. If you can't find the grace to admit you were duped by Bush, you need to be challenged in the primaries.

[Carolab]

3. Yeah, and that's not all.

He said that whatever Fitz hands down "he's prepared to live with".

Speak for yourself, Chuck.

This guy is looking more and more suspicious to me.

[Mass]

11. He also just said that the new Fed nominee was non ideological

(Bush naming somebody non ideological?)

[Quixote1818]

4. We should write him and all the dems in Congress

and tell them to get on the same page and say they WOULDENT have voted for the war now. Dam, this pisses me off! What the hell was Schumer thinking??????? :banghead: :wtf:

[blm]

5. Anyone who blames IWR instead of Bush for not implementing its guidelines

honestly is doing exactly what Rove expected.

Bush gets off the hook because too many people are too dumb to know that IWR had guidelines that Bush refused to administer with integrity.

Instead you blame IWR and those who supported it and its guidelines.

Yeah...that's REAL smart...blame the process instead of the lies.

In fact, the more that's revealed that Bush used lies to flaunt the IWR process, the more people come out of the woodwork to blame the IWR and Dems. As if the process of the IWR meant that Bush was given a blank check and HAD no guidelines given to him.

Many Dems said Bush rushed to war when weapons inspections were working, yet their point never gets heard with all the bombast blaming the IWR, itself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. It's way too hard to actually read something.

It's much easier to blindly bash any and all that don't comply fully with your demands.

[Mass]

8. Right, but Schumer was wrong when he gave the justification of his vote

Even if he thought so then, it is difficult for him to say that it was a strong vote against terrorism. This is what is mindboggling.

[blm]

22. I'm no big Schumer fan, but I do think he's more susceptible to playing

the tough card because the terror issue is so much a part of the incessant Holy War that seems to have been going on for so many years, but that many in the US are just recognizing.

IMO, Bush's actions have exacerbated that Holy War to the nth degree.

[sandnsea]

96. Schumer backs Hillary

She still thinks she has to be pro-war in order to get elected President. She's the entire reason the party is currently all screwed up on the vote and the war. Cindy is right to go after her.

[Cults4Bush]

80. Personally I blame both... your post also fails to consider those who

voted no on IWR, why would they do that if it was all well and good and nobodies responsibility but the admin? Considering the arguments that are usually put forth as the one you posted above and the other of political suicide do not hold the water they should when put against the no votes.

Also there is this (thanks to SOS for making ot handy):

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- ...the President shall...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.

Key words "his determination". Full authorization given to Bush to launch war based on his determination.. Yes IWR required enforcement of SC resolutions. But then it gives Bush the authority to determine that "peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States".

Kennedy, Byrd and 21 others Senators saw through this sham. Byrd called this vote the worst moment in Senate history.
-----------

So maybe instead of calling out everyrone who doesn't agree with your POV on the IWR as in
"Bush gets off the hook because too many people are too dumb to know that IWR had guidelines that Bush refused to administer with integrity."

Maybe just maybe you can come to an understanding that this is not about political costs or even fiscal costs it is about human costs.. lives like Cindys' son Casey Sheehan and Iraqi orphans growing up deformed because of depleted uranium, and the now much larger worldwide threat of terrorism... Whenever I see anyone try to reduce the actual costs of this horrendous and diabolical mistake to pure politica it is hard not to immediately discount such tripe as apologetics in the extreme and for which there is no apology... only admitance of being wrong in the most dire of ways will begin to heal the wound of trust that so many of us feel.

[blm]

99. There is a point that YOU aren't factoring in. Bush was going in anyway.

He had a contingency plan to go in using the original UN res from 1991.

That would have given him the stronger legal argument, too.

But, their purpose was to divide the Dem party before the elections.

The Dems doing the actual negotiating on the IWR were charged with putting on SOME guidelines that needed to be met. THEY were the ones who put weapons inspections into the IWR. They got Syria and Iran taken OUT and off the agenda as targets.

Those Dems stuck doing the negotiating to get a better resolution than the REAL blank check Bush wanted should not be vilified. Their's was no glorious task. They would only get scorn from all corners and used....but...they got a helluva lot better resolution than without their efforts. And the historic record was helped by the report of the weapons inspectors who did get in.

Impeach Bush BECAUSE of the IWR and his lies to circumvent and even obstruct its guidelines. Blaming the IWR helps only ONE agenda.

[Cults4Bush]

118. Links? n/t

[cindyw]

7. Oh God, Kerry did not say the same thing as Schumer.

[Mass]

10. No he did not. Schumer said it was a strong vote against terrorists.

Kerry never said that and he even said that going into Iraq had been bad concerning AlQaeda fighting.

[Carolab]

14. True that. He made it clear he was authorizing the President.

And trusting that the information he/they had was good.

Why don't the Dems just come out and say: "Well, at the time, we thought the intel was reliable...and now that we know it was NOT, we would not vote the same way."

[globalvillage]

115. They have, many times.

Kerry:
"...my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

[still_one]

15. Kerry said he would vote the same way knowing what he knows now

when asked during the 2004 campaign. He was at the Grand Canyon

[Mass]

19. May be you can take the time to read the reports by Newsweek

about the disconnect between the question and the answer.

I dont have the article here, but I am sure you read it, so I am not going to waste any time on it.

Kerry did not say what Schumer said. He NEVER said the part about terror. But why look at such small details?

[still_one]

24. respectfully here is the link from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html


GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

[Carolab]

30. Thanks.

On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

But Kerry has charged that the president and his advisers badly mishandled the war, and in the news conference he posed sharp questions for Bush.

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" he asked. "Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?"


*****
I'm still unclear about this. The statement says he would give the president the authority even knowing the intel was faulty.

[still_one]

33. and that is why Kerry lost

like it or not the repukes were right, he is wishy washy

[emulatorloo]

40. Or maybe you lack reading comprehension.

Authority to pressure Saddam to let inspectors in - Good.

Jumping the gun and invading before inspectors finished thier job (to prove that there were no WMDs) - Bad.

Pretty simple, isn't it?

[still_one]

47. I don't lack reading comprehension

everyone who VOTED for that authority knew that it meant probable war. They knew who they were dealing with, but more important, it had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and for them NOT to admit at a minimum that they were misled if not outright lied to shows that certain democrats in congress do not have the character to admit a mistake, especially since NO WMDs were found

[blm]

58. Bush was going in WITHOUT the IWR, too. At least a Res can outline

new guidelines to meet that weren't required in the UN res from 1991 that Bush planned to use if there was no IWR.

Guess you forgot that Bush didn't want weapons inspections at all, and also wanted power to invade Syria and Iran in the IWR.

[still_one]

64. I agree with everything you presented

I don't think we are in disagreement

[globalvillage]

116. They did.

Sen Kerry did, anyway.
"I will not let off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally. I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

105. And that is one of the reasons I had trouble supporting him with a clear

heart.

[blm]

36. Way to blame the IWR instead of the man who failed to implement it

honestly, following its guidelines.

Best way to distract from Bush's lies AGAINST the IWR? Blame the IWR, itself.

[still_one]

38. that has always been their strategy, in addition

blame the accuser, distract, distract, distract

[blm]

43. Blame the iWR - let Bush off the hook. How convenient.

.

[LittleClarkie]

73. Are you sure that wasn't the Globe?

I read one of their election reports that said when the question was asked at the Grand Canyon, Kerry didn't catch all of it and thought he was getting the standard question, and gave the standard answer.

I understand the Newsweek folks have something different. I should go and look that up. Is that in the book that came out called "How Bush/Cheney won" or is it a magazine article I could look up on their site?

[Carolab]

20. But at that time, it was not entirely clear what was going on, was it?

I mean by that that they/he knew the intel was wrong, but that the intel was deliberately cooked was not clear? Or is that a fine line?

[still_one]

12. yup, during the campaign, in the Grand Canyon

[second edition]

23. I understand that the question was asked differently and not

heard entirely. because of the noise level.

[still_one]

27. Washington Post link

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

doesn't sound like a background noise problem to me. In fact, voting the same way even knowing that WMDs would not be found is NOT only inane, but insane

[second edition]

62. Your taking this from the WP which is a right leaning paper.

Also, you can't believe everything you read in the paper.

[still_one]

67. really, they broke watergate

they have a close association with Newsweek

Sorry, but the Washingpost has never been considered a "right" leaning paper

Maybe you are thinking about the washington times?

[blm]

111. You have GOT to be kidding? Where ya been the last 25 years?

Does the name Steno Sue ring a bell?

Check out WP's editorial board and their roster of columnists.

Guess you didn't notice that KnightRidder got all the big stories against BushInc the last 4 years?

NYT and WP.....NADA.

[second edition]

13. How come it is so difficult for some to understand what this vote

was actually about? It was about protecting our country and it's citizens and providing the President with the necessary power he said he needed to keep us safe. This vote was not a declaration of war.
Oh, and Ed Schultz of all people- the Hillary guy. How does he explain her vote?

[boston bean]

17. the thing is, he did vote to give dumbo the authority. he did it and

instead of taking the high road and saying he was misled, which is the truth, he continues to split hairs.

[still_one]

18. why, because it violated the constitution

also, people from both sides of the previous administration said it was bogus

and yes it was a declaration of war, along with the patriot act. They gave the president unprecidented power, when it is only congress who has the right to declare was

I respectfully disagree with you, but what is worse is that they will NOT even admit a mistake!!!

[still_one]

21. what did Iraq have to do with al queda, or the WTC?

or for that matter the war on terrorism?

[boston bean]

16. talk about disappointment, when i heard him say that I called him

a dumb shit. And asked myself, when, who is going to finally stand up and be counted and say,"We were misled".

For christ sakes its not that hard to do and people will understand it.

[still_one]

28. Paul Hackett

These are the type of people we need in our party

[second edition]

57. He has his place, but he shouldn't be the only type.

besides, he actually is very conservative in his opinions except in regards to the war. How much else do you really know about him other than he bashes Bush and doesn't support the war?

[still_one]

70. I know he is pro-choice, has no problem with gay rights

and wants to protect jobs

He is NOT that right wing

but I do agree with you, he should not be the only mold

but we do need more people to speak truth to power

[globalvillage]

117. It has been said. Many, many times.

Kerry:
"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[Proud_Lefty]

25. We need a new party

We have had so much hope that this democratic party would rise up and save us from the evil in the White House. They've let us down enough time that I've realized we might be looking in the wrong place. It's been nothing but disappointing from most of them.

[still_one]

29. no, we need to clean out the party for those who no longer represent

Democratic principles

That is what elections are all about

[Carolab]

32. But since our elections are rigged, HELP!!!! n/t

[still_one]

34. Everything cannot be blamed on diebold

in 2000 and 2004 the turnout was dismal at best

if we have good candidates, and people care, then nothing can stop it


They cannot fix an election if it is NOT close

[blm]

42. Gore and Kerry BOTH increased the voter turnout for Dems.

Kerry by 10 MILLION votes. That should prove that Bush's total was rigged.

And, still one, if you want Kerry drummmed out of the party so bad, why don't you run against him in the primary?

Make a case how YOU could have done more and will do more for our nation's historic record than a knownothing like Kerry ever did the last 35 years.

[still_one]

54. I didn't say there wasn't issues

I am just saying that the voting turnout was still dismal, and after 2000 it should NOT have been.

Incidently, I was involved in getting the vote out, and the effort was too little too late. It should have started right after the 2000 election, not in the final round of 2004.

[blm]

65. That's the DNC's job.

Kerry won his one on one matchups with Bush.

DNC was outorganized by the RNC.

Leftleaning and objective media had their asses handed to them by a RW media machine that knew how to control a disciplined message on a daily basis.

Did Free Republic kick our ass at DU because they were made out to be a credible source by Cspan, while we were treated as over the top radicals?

It's all relative isn't it? Unless, of course, you think George Bush alone beat John Kerry alone.

[still_one]

72. Yes some is relative

but Kerry's message was NOT clear.

I have met people from other states, who voted for *, and the reason they gave me was because they didn't know where Kerry stood on the issues

That says everything. He didn't get his message out for whatever reason

[blm]

89. Why? What didn't he say at his convention speech and what don't THEY know

about the difference between Dems and Repubs on the issues?

Did none of them attend a rally? Have internet access? Watch campaign speeches on Cspan? Listen to the debates?

Granted, if any casual corporate media viewer only got their news from cable news shows, they were poorly served. They wanted to talk about abything but Kerry's stand on the issues compared to Bush's.

But anyone who made an effort to watch the campaign and read the literature on the issues, couldn't possibly say they didn't know where Kerry stood on issues.

[still_one]

108. For you and me it is no question about the issues

but the right wing propaganda machine was out in full force. Many of the people in this great country are morans. Kerry NEVER explained himself where it counted about voting against the 87 million aid for our troops, but what really helped the demise was when the swift-puke nonesense came out, and he refused to address it. It would be one thing if he DIDN'T float his miltary career as a campaign issue at the convention, but he did, and when the lies started, he waited weeks, and even then his response was weak at best. It was his surrogates, NOT HIM, who addressed the issue strongly. If he didn't want to have his military background as an issues he should have NEVER brought it up at the convention or during the campaign

Where was the John Kerry from the 70's? Where was his passion?

[blm]

112. What a crock. You grab at anything and hope it sticks.

.

[still_one]

122. wrong, this is from common people that I met and talked with

it didn't matter what I said, they perceived there was no difference

you can throw any criticism at me, but unless you convience them, it really doesn't matter does it?

Kerry did NOT sell himself well. Example, look at Paul Hackett, he came from no where, and spoke truth to power, and almost won in an extremely repuke district

Yes, Kerry won the debates, but in the three debates he was asked the question about the 87 million, and he didn't answer it.

Unless we learn from our mistakes we will continue to lose elections.

Peace

[blm]

123. Point was that THEY never went beyond the media spin and narrative?

Do THEY not know the difference between GOP and Dems?

Do THEY not have internet access or Cspan?

Do THEY not understand platforms?

Do THEY not notice that Kerry swept the debates DECISIVELY against a sitting president?

Were THEY just not paying attention and chose to blame Kerry when confronted?

YOU just accept it as all Kerry's fault because it suits the narrative YOU cling to, no different than anything Andrea Mitchell or Howard Fineman....and we KNOW who they work for.

[mestup]

45. "They cannot fix an election if it is NOT close" Exactly! n/t

[second edition]

60. What! Turn out was better than it was in many many years in "04".

Kerry and Gore were both good candidates.

[still_one]

74. Most people didn't vote

As for Kerry and Gore being good candidate, I respectfully disagree

That is your personal opinion

I for one believe, Clark, Dean, or Edwards would have been far better

In my view Kerry didn't have the stomach to fight, or he would have responded to the lies against him sooner

Gore's problem, were mostly the people behind him

[second edition]

84. Then we disagree! Kerry the war hero, should not have to

prove to you that he is and was a fighter. There are many degrees of fighting and winning. I disagreed with Dean's approach. And I don't recall Clark or Edwards talking tough. In fact, Edwards refused to go negative on his opponents.

[blm]

90. Did Bush respond to the AWOL issue? No. Others did.

Did Bush attack Kerry personally? No. Others did.

THE people AROUND Bush were organized to spread lies better than the DNC was organized to tell the truth.

The RW media machine was more organized to tell lies better than leftleaning and objective media were organized to express the truth.

Kerry won his one on one matchup with Bush DECISIVELY.

BTW...Dean didn't overcome the lies of the media against him. In fact, he found it a very difficult road and it dampened his outspokenness for awhile afterwards.

And the lies were waiting for any Dem nominee.

Revisionism isn't helpful.

[robbedvoter]

113. Oh, noooo????? What's to stop them? They make up the polls too.

What do you think, there's a limit to what a machine can eat/create? If so, what is it? 5%? 23%? 99%?

[robbedvoter]

114. How close is too close to steal? What's the theft margin?

Why do people here even believe that it was a close election now or in 2000?
This is not a dafense of any candidate just a desperate attempt to wake you up.

[Carolab]

120. Believe me, I've been awake and aware about this since 2000.

And trying to DO something about it.

Why do so many people resist the obvious? All anyone has to do is read "Votescam" to know that this has been going on forever--and is just getting more "high tech" and harder to stop and prove.

WAKE UP EVERYONE!

Your votes have been CO-OPTED by the machines and the media consortium "pollsters"!!!

http://www.votescam.com/home1.php

[Proud_Lefty]

75. You're right about that

I'm just extremely disappointed in them.

[sweetheart]

26. 9/11 happened in Schumer's constituency

It strikes me, that he is representing his constituents, a load of
persons who were pretty pissed off over the 9/11 attacks, people who were
directly impacted, who knew people killed.

Schumer did not lie to congress, misinform and all that. He was stuck
in a difficult position given the information presented to him. And it
would have cost him his seat, surely, had he not listened to the more
vocal amongst his constituents who believed that iraq had some
responsibility for 9/11... though a lie, his job is to represent his
constituents, and the whole load of them were lied to.

Perhaps we should consider who lied, and take our criminal indictments
there. This torquemada mentality is just a bit divisive. A load of
backseat driver bloggers who are purging a party that is not theirs
to purge. The democratic party is the other half of the war party.
Surely people need to get realistic about what they are voting for...
the dems are a lesser evil, not a progressive party... come on... why
punish people for being what they have always been, for representing
their constituents in a distopian corporatist state.

[still_one]

31. nothing justifies attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11

[sweetheart]

37. Yes, but blame the system, not the instrument

It is not a clarinet's fault that it is a reed instrument. It is the
fact that clarinet's are used in some musical systems that is at fault.
Schumer was informed that WMD's were in iraq, and he was lied to as well.
So outside of being clairvoyant, what knowledge was he to base his
informed opposition on?

[still_one]

39. then why not admit he was LIED to?

why when asked if you would vote the same way knowing what you know now, schumer says yes

That is the problem. It has nothing to do with the system, it has everything to do with the common sense

[emulatorloo]

50. probably because if Schumer was president in 2014

and there was a country which might have WMDs Nukes

and he wanted leverage to get weapons inspectors in to determine if this country did indeed have a stockpile of WMDs

and he went to the congress to ask for a resolution that was to be used to get inspectors back in

then all the republicans would say no you said that that was a mistake last time to vote for a resolution that could be used to put pressure to get inspectors in.

[still_one]

61. Let me ask a different question

bush and company are making similar sounds about Iran and WMDs

What justifies any country from NOT having WMDs if we do?

As far as leverage, there are a lot of other ways to go about it, economic, embargo, and maybe dialogue

[emulatorloo]

106. question 1 is a whole different thread

question 2 Powell said all means necessary would be pursued, and war would be a last resort.

Apparently though he was out of the loop.

[sweetheart]

51. cast back to 2003

and recall the majority support for the war, after the successful
campaign in afganistan, sold as a cake walk by those responsible.
At some point, we have to hold the executive responsible, as otherwise
we are all accomplaces in this war crime, being the taxpayers.
Then we can have a new anti-war witch hunt and blame all the people
who were bulldozed over, and not the bulldozer.

The emnity being directed at herr schumer should be directed at
the war criminals. Then all who kissed up to the charade will be
disgraced as well.... like a wing fighter advised luke on his run
at the death star "stay on target" These indictments are the tip of
an iceburg of criminality that will sink the lot of them. Why must
we, in our frustration, gnaw on the ankles of our own "great and good".

[still_one]

76. when will the democrats come out and say bush is a LIAR

[Carolab]

97. Harry Reid did, remember? n/t

[Carolab]

35. There are only TWO conclusions.

The Dems KNEW all along the intel was cooked, and are COMPLICIT.

The Dems are CHICKENSHITS.

[still_one]

41. exception

boxer, feingold, kucinich, and other democrats were complict or chickenshits, they were profiles in courage

[Carolab]

44. Yup. And Wellstone, RIP. n/t

[still_one]

77. Boy we need someone like Paul now

what compassion

[Carolab]

93. One of Dean's heroes. Also Mark Dayton's. And Boxer's.

Wellstone was a real LEADER in the Senate.

That's why they had to get rid of him.

[Mass]

46. Not true - Clark himself said that he would have voted for the resolution

- for the same reason Kerry said - and that the intelligence presented to the Senators were compelling.

They certainly should said they were lied to, I agree.

[bahrbearian]

48. He now admits to its Mistake! Mistake to let the Chimp have it.

[Mass]

52. True and I agree with him on that.

No issue with Clark (except I wished he called for troop withdrawal).

[still_one]

82. and that is the whole point

recognizing, and admitting the mistake

how else can we learn and go forward?

[still_one]

79. I have never heard Clark asked the question

if he knows now what he knew then would he have voted for the resolution

The question is NOT that someone did or did not vote for it, but that they recognize the falicy

[triguy46]

53. If he/we really believe this, the game is over...

why are we even bothering? What a cop out, to decry the rationale then state, 'but I wouldn't change a thing.' What a dork.

[Carolab]

59. Welcome to ONE PARTY rule.

Masquerading as TWO.

[second edition]

69. Nonsence, ask a Repub than ask a Dem why they voted IWR

and you'll get two very different answers.

[Carolab]

71. Not those who are DLC-PPI affiliated.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/ppi.php

Using language that mirrors that of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), in October 2003 PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which warned of the present danger in its founding documents, the Progressive Policy Institute declared that “America is threatened once again” and needs assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. Its observation--“like the cold war, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades”--mirrors both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. In its words, PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq, “because the previous policy of containment was failing,” and Saddam Hussein’s government was “undermining both collective security and international law.” (9)

**********

THIS is why EVERYONE should sign Paul Hackett's pledge, NOT to support any candidate that hasn't got a clear vision and goal to get us OUT of Iraq.

I pledge to only support candidates who:
1. Acknowledge that the U.S. was misled into the war in Iraq
2. Advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline
3. Support our troops at home and abroad

http://tools.democracyforamerica.com/petition/iraqpledge/

[second edition]

85. Frankly, I wouldn't sign anything from Hackett.

This guy is way ahead of himself. Being a returning soldier allows him respect and consideration of his opinion- it doen't necessarly make him correct.

[Carolab]

95. Well, he's certainly right about this, IMHO. n/t

[lonestarnot]

66. WTF is WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE! Schumer are you

NUTS?

[Carolab]

78. Time for Dems to BURN DOWN THE DLC!!!!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_050821_real_democrats_must_.htm

Real Democrats Must Burn Down the DLC, To Keep It From Burning Them
... The DLC represents the republican-lite wing of the Democratic party.

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

Of course I’m speaking metaphorically, but it is so clear that the DLC is a toxic entity that has been incredibly damaging to the Democratic party.

The DLC believes that Americans see Democrats as wusses who are afraid to defend the country. I think the DLC’s cowardice and spineless inability to take principled stands, choosing hypernuanced BS, weasel words and flip-flopping instead, are the cause of the problem with the Democratic Party’s reputation. Democrats have fought wars before and they can and will again, as needed. The problem is with the Democrats' approach to defense, it's with the DLC's approach to the Democratic party, how they've been sabotaging it and its principles and its core constituent issues and values.

Don’t expect this to be an easy process. They lie and use subterfuge, just like the right wingers they act like and want to turn the Democratic party into functioning like. Take for example, their official think tank, Progressive Policy Institute, which shares their website http://www.dlc.org/ at the top of the website header page. How dare they call themselves progressive?!?! They send out reports that sound like typical right wing think tank tripe.

If you haven’t studied the DLC website, you should. Get to know who their people are in congress. See for yourself how they water down strong, solid Democratic visions and ideas. You have to wonder if they are really just working for the Republicans, just another kind of dirty op, like the swift boat ads, the detectives hired to dig up dirt on strong democratic candidates, etc. It sometimes seems that the DLC is sabotaging the Democratic party.

Then we have DLC celebrity Senator Schumer from New York, deciding that he’s going to help us decide who will run as Democrats in the next congressional and senatorial election cycle of 2006. He thinks he’s delegated the Pennsylvania candidate to run against Rick Santorum, and he’s bragging that he and his people are taking the decision making process out of the hands of the people of Pennsylvania and, I guess, out of the hands of the people in other battleground states, where he thinks his opinion of who should run is more important than THE PEOPLE’s opinion.

But I digress. My point is that Schumer picked a candidate for the biggest, most visible election of 2006, who basically sells out the right to abortion that women have fought so hard to get. Selling out abortion is like pulling out the ground from beneath the solid footing of the women’s movement. If Casey wins, the DLC will use the victory to argue that all Democratic candidates should sell out women and who knows what else. I can’t imagine the Democratic women of New York state supporting Schumer after he’s pulled such a treacherous, betraying move. His hubris should be his undoing and I hope he faces a strong challenger come his next election. (I hear he’s a very vindictive politician—another reason to get rid of him.)

[second edition]

81. Post like this one get us no where!

How intolerant you all are of those who oppose your point of view. Try "walking a mile" in anyone of these senators shoes, review the complexities, reasonings and circumstances leading up to a vote of this magnitude. Consider, the oath of office they swore to, to uphold the Constitution and protect the United States and it's citizens at all costs. Consider, the mood of the country back then. Wouldn't voting against the safety of the US appear to be bad?You all seemed to have all the answers back then based on your comments. Where were your voices? You had it figured out.You knew Bush was lying. Where were your voices back then. Where was your proof to back up your assumptions? It so easy to monday morning quarterback after the fact. It's much harder to have to make a difficult decision based on the intelligence your presented with, the concerns you have for your country and the fears of the American public.

This is all so counterproductive, our attentions should be focused on 2006 and supporting all of our Dem's warts and all.

[still_one]

83. no it isn't, and I respectfully disagree

if we don't recognize mistakes and admit them, then we will go no where

When someone indicates that they would vote the same way knowing what they know now, which is that there were NO WMDs, Iraq wasn't a threat, is vital to our very substance

THIS does focus on 2006, because this will be an issue.

[second edition]

88. You fail to see that this is his opinion and it was his vote,

you don't have to agree with him, but you don't have the right to expect him to change it. If he is wrong, then he is wrong. He doesn't seem to think so. It is over and done with, it cannot be taken back and things changed. What good actually comes from even rehashing it all and wanting the Dem's to admit they were mistaken? I think it is better to except the vote as it was and the circumstances leading up to it, put the past behind us and move forward. Lesson learned.

[still_one]

91. I do not believe the lessons were learned

[Carolab]

94. You got that right. As Borosage says this war keeps dividing us.

And it IS going to be more and more important.

[still_one]

98. it should be an issue in 2006

[PassingFair]

101. No, I prefer to try walking in THESE senators shoes:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

The FIT is better.

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

Posts like YOURS get us and have gotten us NOWHERE.

We were screaming against the war LOUD and CLEAR. MILLIONS marched against it. If the DLC failed to hear, it is their fault, not ours.
We need to scrub the party, apparently from the bottom up, as the enablers at the top won't leave on their own.

[still_one]

110. and those that voted for it better admit it was a mistake

because the Iraq war is an election issue that MUST NOT be ignored

[second edition]

124. I refer to the period prior to the war, before we attacked Iraq.

Millions weren't protesting back then. The biggest concern about allowing Bush to win this vote was giving him a blank check to exercise his full powers. IMO, those who voted for the resolution were not doing so out of weakness as you seem to feel. Isn't quite possible they believed they were doing the right thing at the time? They might even feel they WOULD vote the same again based on the circumstances and Saddam's threatening noncompliance with UN requirements, but then not allow Bush unchecked power. Perhaps, the question should be reworded to reflect Bush's abuse of power.
I still stand by my comments about all this discussion being nonproductive. Attacking other Dem's and demanding a party overthrow because you didn't like the way they voted on a resolution is just not a forward thinking idea.It fails to address, respect and accept the feelings of others in the party who do not entirely agree with you. It's over and done with, it's time to address the situations confronting us now.I don't understand how admitting to being mistaken at this point is actually a good thing. It seems you just want to experience an "I told you so" moment.

[PassingFair]

125. Don't "project" your personality onto me....

I am not an "I told you so" type. I called and wrote my congressmen and senators. I donated money to Jim Jeffords for his courageous vote.
Call accountability "non-productive" if you will, it IS your right.

I don't demand a party "overthrow". I demand accountability.
And yes MILLIONS of people knew we were going to attack Iraq. Pre-invasion protests broke records around the world:

"On February 15, 2003 in hundreds of cities across the world an estimated ten million people demonstrated against war on Iraq. It was the largest single day of antiwar protest in human history. More than a million people jammed the center of London, and huge throngs marched in Rome, Barcelona, Berlin, Madrid, Paris, Sydney, and hundreds of other cities. An estimated four hundred thousand braved bitter cold in New York, and tens of thousands demonstrated in San Francisco.1 The people of the globe spoke out as never before in one unified voice against the planned invasion of Iraq. “The world says no to war,” was the slogan and the reality.

The February 15 demonstrations were the high point of a vast and unprecedented mobilization of public opposition to war. The Iraq campaign “was the largest transnational antiwar movement that has ever taken place,” according to social movement scholar Barbara Epstein."


The Pro-IWR vote was a CYNICAL, calculated vote, based on the idea that if the bushtards pulled it off, the Demicans would be on the winning side.

If all hell broke loose (MUCH highter probability) they could say they were LIED to and cry foul. I'm sure they thought it was a "safe" way to vote.

They had their chance to call for the truth. Thousands upon thousands have died. All based on a "pack of LIES".

Your vichy dems can clink their champagne glasses in a salute to themselves, but I won't be working for them in any primaries.

[WI_DEM]

86. he was one of the biggest democratic supporters of the war

but it's hard to believe after all we know how these people can still vote for it

[radio4progressives]

100. I just called his DC office -

let the staffer know i am from California and just heard that clip and the level of outrage and utter disbelief that even a DLC member would be so out of touch and answer that question so stupidly.

the staffer hung up the phone on me.

I think everyone from out of state should Schumer's DC office and those in New York - well you know what should be done.

Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Lieberman Kerry et al. WRONG for America. Wrong for the Democratic Party.

on the other hand, Feingold, Boxer et al (and several others) at least understand had American's "known then what we know now" (of course most of us knew then that the WMD was a LIE - but for the sake of argument they could now use the phony "intelligence" reports as an out) they should be uninamious on saying NO we would NOT vote YES on a blank check to invade Iraq.

What rediculous asses these people are. If there are still DU'rs ignorant enough to continue to defend these fascists CHARLATANS still, then they deserve to continue to be ruled under the fascists that are in office today, because this vote makes them all the same.

in other words when it comes to the 2008 elections, and these charlatans are still calling the shots, are still giving the same lame talking points again, the mantra everyone is going to hear (and deservedly so) is that there is not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. Period.

And so we're going to be in this fascists rule for decades until America (most especially DLC sycophants) finally get it.

but by then, I'm afraid it will be too late.

[Carolab]

103. AMEN! AMEN!!

...and AMEN!!!!

[still_one]

107. I am quite surprised they hung up on you

were you rude?

[jzodda]

109. That is disappointing

knowing what we know now is knowing so damn much, and to know all that and still cast a vote like that? Terrible....

I would love to have a complete list of all national dems who would also vote yes today. I have NO problem with dems who supported the war untill they realized they were LIED to. I have a problem with anybody who would vote yes today seeing what is going on there and the breakup of that nation.

[Jacobin]

121. A MAJOR case of the dumb ass

If they haven't fucking figured it out by now, they are either terminally stupid or bought off by companies making money killing our young