Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

just wondering: who here HONESTLY believes

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
 
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:42 PM
Original message
just wondering: who here HONESTLY believes
that the democrats who voted for the war resolution did it SOLELY for the security of our country?

OR for the security of their political futures?


i mean, if so many of US knew it was all a sham way back then, should THEY have? of ALL people?


like i said, just asking.. no flaming here :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. It was obvious to me it was for their political security
from the beginning. Also, if one could follow the campaign money trail, I think a lot of the answer lies there as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. some opportunism, some true belief in the threat, and a whole lot of FEAR
that if they didn't and something ala 911 did happen they a) would be cooked politically and/or b) they couldn't live with having not prevented it (hopefully more b than a).

Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfecap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. Political security. No doubt about it.
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 07:47 PM by sfecap
Can we also include the Patriot Act votes, too? :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. The security of their political futures
You should have done this as a poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. someone
feel free to make this a poll... i don't know how...

but i'd also like some discussion on this as well... b/c so many folks, even some people here at DU, seem to have lost sight of the bigger picture... i hear so many here defending so and so's vote on the resolution... and it's beginning to really irk me...

we can NEVER lose sight of the roots of this war... and of those who have now blood on their hands...

sorry, i said no flaming, so i'll stop here, i'm just really beginning to get upset about this again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. I wonder
what "evidence" they were given. Were they given reports that reported real information or were they just given reports that said the evidence was real? What really goes on in those committees?

My take on it is that they believed the reports because the alternative was just too incredible. If you are a Senator and have faith in your government, it would make some sense that you would trust that the information that was being handed to you was valid.

Now that the facts are coming out, many of them realize they were duped by the very government that they serve. It must be an awful realization.

MzPip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fixated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. ...
The Repubs have been throwing it out to save their asses that many Dems voted for war. Now, they were products of the lies, too. Many held classified information that could have turned the tide, but they obviouisly couldn't release it. So they voted for the war to save themselves in the eyes of the public, who they weren't allowed to inform. It's paradoxical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfecap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. But....
It is quite telling to me that Bob Graham didn't vote for the resolution. He sits on the Senate Intelligence committee, doesn't he?

Using Gephardts recent logic, all of the Senators could have voted no and the outcome would have been the same wouldn't it? The majority is in control. The rsolution would have passed.

I believe that Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman sniffed the political winds and voted accordingly. They knew that they were planning a run, and couldn't stand the criticism they'd get if they voted against.

I also believe that they knew that * would attack Iraq with or without the UN and a coalition. The resolution gives them "cover" but they knew what was up. If they couldn't figure the chimp out, they aren't smart enough to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shimmergal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
53. Yes, Chimpy would have gotten a majority anyway.
And probably would have figured out a way to invade Iraq even without one. He can't stand being crossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upfront Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Evidence
Carl Levin was givin all the evidence there was, and he voted against war. Told me all I needed to know. He is a great man in my humble openion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Dick Durbin was also given all the information and voted AGAINST.
And let us not forget Senator Byrd who had never before voted against a war resolution and who was also fully in the know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
44. reports?? intelligence committees???
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 09:50 PM by steviet_2003
i believe that the way it works is the the members of the intelligence committees are privy to the classified information. all other members of congress technically are confined to the declassified info and statements put out by the admin and agencies. does anybody know for sure?? i think i am right on this though i am also sure that they all talk to a certain extent in private.

an interesting questions has been raised in my mind. of both the house and senate intelligence committee members, how many voted for the war resolution and in what numbers for each party? we know that graham did not.

(on edit, i need to proofread before i post)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
71. Durbin voted against. He was 2nd on the Senate Intel Committee.
I believe that the total was 7 Dems on Intel voting against the resolution with 5 voting for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. At the time,
It would have been political suicide to have gone against Bu$hCo. Look at what they did to Cynthia McKinney. Plus add a dash of anthrax and who find out real quick, who has a spine and who doesn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. so does that
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 08:00 PM by newsguyatl
mean that they're off the hook for voting for political reasons versus their conscience?

do we want someone like this leading our party? our country?

do you think any of them feel at least a bit guilty for all the lives lost? all the lives destroyed?

just asking :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. It depends
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 08:20 PM by DoYouEverWonder
For someone like Hillary, if she voted against the war the freepers would have destroyed her career. She would have been bashed 24/7 by Rush. Is it better to be a martyr for the cause, or to stay in the game and to be able to continue to fight from within? Maybe, I am more forgiving of Hillary than other folks, she been through a hell of lot in order to get to where she is today, I don't blame her for not going the martyr route.

However, for the ones who are planning to run for president who voted with Bu$h, it is certainly an issue that causes me to withhold my support from them. I will only support someone who voted with the pResident, if I have no other choice.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Since when does whtat she says or does make a difference to Freepers?
Are you saying she should tailor her decisions to please them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
62. The point is: WHAT fight from within?
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 11:11 PM by Eloriel
Lotta people deluding themselves about the quality of representation we're getting, and settling for a lot less than we deserve.

That's a formula for more of the same. MUCH more of the same

Not good enough in my book. Can you imagine the contempt they have for us? I used to be angry about the contempt the Repugs have for us, but my attitude has shifted. Contempt for the public, for the citizens for whom this government should work, and to whom it should be truthful, seems to be an equal opportunity insult.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demobrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. The security of their political careers.
Because of the timing it would have taken a lot of guts to stand up to Bush then. I admit that. Rove stared them down and they blinked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. question is...
is compromise on the issue when * turned out to be demonstrably lying about his assertions (and CIA, and FBI, and NSA, etc.) enough to assuage disaffected Dems who supported the NO vote to the War resolution?

As I recall...Dianne Feinstein voted Yes, having said she witnessed some closed door intelligence...even at the insistence of overwhelming opposition dircted at her from her constituents, she still voted for giving Bush the power.

So, there's obviously some division.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. DiFi's hubby
has profitted from the war quite nicely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. No kidding.
This was the real reason she voted. DiFi will not get my vote if another Democrat runs against her in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. DiFi knew what was the result for her and hers...
$$$$$...there's been a lot of deals cut along the way..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. and they want HER to run as the Dem choice to replace Davis
from bad to....who the hell knows?!?! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. I'm hoping she still has a shred of ethics left not to do that.
I wouldn't make bets though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Most didn't vote to give Bush power to invade Iraq.
Many of them hoped Bush would go back to congress to make a case for invasion after, and only after the inspections by UN personnel failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
70. Hoped, shmoped.
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 11:46 PM by hedda_foil
Byrd and others sponsored a resolution to force * to come back to Congress for a second resolution. Most of the DLC Dems voted against it and voted FOR giving * a virtual blank check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imhotep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kerry
still says he does not regret his vote. He is responsible for the soldiers who are dying every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IggleDoer Donating Member (601 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. They could also say "I trusted President Rove"
and was led astray by the false intelligence put forward by the RW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Were they threatened
and HAD to go for the war lies of BS? Don't forget, there's many who surmise what really happened to Wellstone and many others..Didn't you find it interesting that Hillary also went along for the ride? It doesn't add up..also, remember the anthrax mailings to the D's...don't think they missed who received them...There's lots of things going on and now they're all dancing to a different tune...Shall we talk about the fixed elections?..Did they actually SEE any evidence or were they TOLD what it was and heard the same lies as we've heard..Now we're on the campaign road and now we're going to see and hear a lot of things of what these people really think, and there's going to be battles big time..The shit's hitting the fan, but don't be surprised if another "last resort" comes to the people again..put nothing past this gang in DC..it wouldn't surprise me if they cancel the elections..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. No one here
happens to have a list of those who voted against do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
58. Corrected votes
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 11:34 PM by Pastiche423
On edit: These are the correct nay votes

Alabama: 7 members total; 1 voted no
Earl Hilliard (D) *now out of office

Arizona: 6 members total; 1 voted no
Ed Pastor (D) 4th CD

Arkansas: 4 members total; 1 voted no
Vic Snyder (D) 2nd CD

California: 52 members total; 24 voted no
Joe Baca (D) 43rd CD
Xavier Becerra (D) 31st CD
Lois Capps (D) 23rd CD
Gary Condit (D) *now out of office
Susan Davis (D) 53rd CD
Anna Eshoo (D) 14th CD
Sam Farr (D) 17th CD
Bob Filner (D) 51st CD
Michael Honda (D) 15th CD
Barbara Lee (D) 9th CD
Zoe Lofgren (D) 16th CD
Robert Matsui (D) 5th CD
Juanita Millender-McDonald (D) 37th CD
George Miller (D) 7th CD
Grace Napolitano (D) 38th CD
Nancy Pelosi (D) 8th CD *current House minority leader
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) 34th CD
Loretta Sanchez (D) 47th CD
Hilda Solis (D) 32nd CD
Fortney Stark (D) 13th CD
Mike Thompson (D) 1st CD
Maxine Waters (D) 35th CD
Diane Watson (D) 33rd CD
Lynn Woolsey (D) 6th CD

Colorado: 6 members total; 2 voted no
Diana DeGette (D) 1st CD
Mark Udall (D) 2nd CD

Connecticut: 6 members total; 3 voted no
Rosa DeLauro (D) 3rd CD
John Larson (D) 1st CD
James Maloney (D) *now out of office

Florida: 23 members total; 3 voted no
Corrine Brown (D) 3rd CD
Alcee Hastings (D) 23rd CD
Kendrick Meek (D) 17th CD

Georgia: 11 members total; 2 voted no
John Lewis (D) 5th CD
Cynthia McKinney (D) *now out of office

Hawaii: 1 member total; 1 voted no
Neil Abercrombie (D) 1st CD

Illinois: 20 members total; 8 voted no
Jerry Costello (D) 12th CD
Danny Davis (D) 7th CD
Lane Evans (D) 17th CD
Luis Gutierrez (D) 4th CD
Jesse Jackson (D) 2nd CD
William Lipinski (D) 3rd CD
Bobby Rush (D) 1st CD
Janice Schakowsky (D) 9th CD

Indiana: 10 members total; 3 voted no
Julia Carson (D) 7th CD
John Hostettler (R) 8th CD
Peter Visclosky (D) 1st CD

Iowa: 5 members total; 1 voted no
Jim Leach (R) 2nd CD

Maine: 2 members total; 2 voted no
Thomas Allen (D) 1st CD
John Baldacci (D) *now out of office

Maryland: 8 members total; 3 voted no
Benjamin Cardin (D) 3rd CD
Elijah Cummings (D) 7th CD
Connie Morella (R) *now out of office

Massachusetts: 10 members total; 7 voted no
Michael Capuano (D) 8th CD
William Delahunt (D) 10th CD
Barney Frank (D) 4th CD
James McGovern (D) 3rd CD
Richard Neal (D) 2nd CD
John Olver (D) 1st CD
John Tierney (D) 6th CD

Michigan: 16 members total; 7 voted no
David Bonior (D) *now out of office
John Conyers (D) 14th CD
John Dingell (D) 15th CD
Dale Kildee (D) 5th CD
Carolyn Kilpatrick (D) 13th CD
Sander Levin (D) 12th CD
Lynn Rivers (D) *now out of office
Bart Stupak (D) 1st CD

Minnesota: 8 members total; 3 voted no
Betty McCollum (D) 4th CD
James Oberstar (D) 8th CD
Martin Olav Sabo (D) 5th CD

Mississippi: 5 members total; 1 voted no
Bennie Thompson (D) 2nd CD

Missouri: 9 members total; 2 voted no
William Clay (D) 1st CD
Karen McCarthy (D) 5th CD

New Jersey: 13 members total; 4 voted no
Rush Holt (D) 12th CD
Robert Menendez (D) 13th CD
Frank Pallone (D) 6th CD
Donald Payne (D) 10th CD

New Mexico: 3 members total; 1 voted no
Tom Udall (D) 3rd CD

New York: 31 members total; 11 voted no
Maurice Hinchey (D) 22nd CD
Amory Houghton (R) 29th CD
John LaFalce (D) *now out of office
Gregory Meeks (D) 6th CD
Jerrold Nadler (D) 8th CD
Major Owens (D) 11th CD
Charles Rangel (D) 15th CD
Jose Serrano (D) 16th CD
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D) 28th CD
Edolphus Towns (D) 10th CD
Nydia Velazquez (D) 12th CD

North Carolina: 12 members total; 3 voted no
Eva Clayton (D) *now out of office
David Price (D) 4th CD
Melvin Watt (D) 12th CD

Ohio: 17 members total; 6 voted no
Sherrod Brown (D) 13th CD
Marcy Kaptur (D) 9th CD
Dennis Kucinich (D) 10th CD
Thomas Sawyer (D) *now out of office
Ted Strickland (D) 6th CD
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D) 11th CD

Oregon: 5 members total; 4 voted no
Earl Blumenauer (D) 3rd CD
Peter DeFazio (D) 4th CD
Darlene Hooley (D) 5th CD
David Wu (D) 1st CD

Pennsylvania: 21 members total; 4 voted no
Robert Brady (D) 1st CD
William Coyne (D) *now out of office
Mike Doyle (D) 14th CD
Chaka Fattah (D) 2nd CD

Rhode Island: 2 members total; 1 voted no
James Langevin (D) 2nd CD

South Carolina: 6 members total; 1 voted no
James Clyburn (D) 6th CD

Tennessee: 9 members total; 1 voted no
John Duncan (R) 2nd CD

Texas: 30 members total; 8 voted no
Lloyd Doggett (D) 10th CD
Charles Gonzalez (D) 20th CD
Ruben Hinojosa (D) 15th CD
Sheila Jackson Lee (D) 18th CD
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) 30th CD
Ron Paul (R) 14th CD
Silvestre Reyes (D) 16th CD
Ciro Rodriguez (D) 28th CD

Vermont: 1 member total; 1 voted no
Bernard Sanders (I) at large

Virginia: 11 members total; 2 voted no
James Moran (D) 8th CD
Bobby Scott (D) 3rd CD

Washington: 9 members total; 4 voted no
Brian Baird (D) 3rd CD
Jay Inslee (D) 1st CD
Rick Larsen (D) 2nd CD
Jim McDermott (D) 7th CD

West Virginia: 3 members total; 2 voted no
Alan Mollohan (D) 1st CD
Nick Rahall (D) 3rd CD

Wisconsin: 9 members total; 4 voted no
Tammy Baldwin (D) 2nd CD
Thomas Barrett (D) *now out of office
Jerry Kleczka (D) 4th CD
David Obey (D) 7th CD

Not Voting : 3 Members (2 Republicans = 1%; 1 Democrat = less than 1%)
Bob Stump (R-Arizona) *now out of office
Marge Roukema (R-New Jersey) *now out of office
Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas) 27th CD

Lists compiled by Congress.org Compositions of Senate and House, percentages, and * compiled by Jeanne Finley


SENATE
Composition of Senate on October 10, 2002:
100 voting members 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, 1 Independent

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR SENATE ROLL CALL 237, HJ RES 114 10-OCT-2002

BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq ("War Resolution Act of 2002") Two pevious amendments sponsored by Carl Levin and Robert Byrd failed: 1) Byrd: Would have safeguarded Congress' Constitutional role in declaring war and ensured that no additional grant of authority is made to the President beyond Iraq. 2) Levin: Would have required United Nations Security Council authorization or a second vote from Congress before the president could launch war on Iraq.

Vote: 77 yea (77%), 23 nay (23%)

Yea: 77 (48 Republicans=98%, 29 Democrats=58%)

Alaska:
Frank Murkowski - R *out of office; now governor of Alaska
Ted Stevens - R

Alabama:
Jeff Sessions - R
Richard Shelby - R

Arkansas:
Tim Hutchinson - R *now out of office
Blanche Lincoln - D

Arizona:
Jon Kyl - R
John McCain - R

California: Dianne Feinstein - D

Colorado:
Wayne Allard - R
Ben Nighthorse Campbell - R

Connecticut:
Christopher Dodd - D
Joseph Lieberman - D * co-sponsor of bill with Rep. Felix Grucci in House **has announced will seek Democratic nomination for president in 2004

Delaware:
Joseph Biden - D
Thomas Carper (D-Delaware)

Florida:
Bill Nelson - D

Georgia:
Max Cleland - D *now out of office
Zell Miller - D

Idaho:
Larry Craig - R
Michael Crapo - R

Illinois:
Peter Fitzgerald - R

Indiana:
Evan Bayh - D
Richard Lugar - R

Iowa:
Charles Grassley- R
Tom Harkin - D

Kansas:
Sam Brownback - R
Pat Roberts - R

Kentucky:
Jim Bunning - R
Mitch McConnell - R

Louisiana:
John Breaux - D
Mary Landrieu - D

Maine:
Susan Collins - R
Olympia Snowe - R

Massachusetts:
John Kerry - D *has announced will seek Democratic nomination for president in 2004

Mississippi:
Thad Cochran - R
Trent Lott - R * resigned as Senate Majority leader Jan. 2003

Missouri:
Christopher Bond - R
Jean Carnahan - D *now out of office

Montana:
Max Baucus - D
Conrad Burns - R

Nebraska:
Chuck Hagel - R
Ben Nelson - D

Nevada:
John Ensign - R
Harry Reid - D

New Hampshire:
Judd Gregg - R
Robert Smith - R *now out of office

New Jersey:
Robert Torricelli - D *now out of office

New Mexico:
Pete Domenici - R

New York:
Hillary Clinton - D
Charles Schumer - D

North Carolina:
John Edwards - D *has announced will seek Democratic nomination for president in 2004
Jesse Helms - R * retired

North Dakota:
Byron Dorgan - D

Ohio:
Mike DeWine - R
George Voinovich - R

Oklahoma:
James Inhofe - R
Don Nickles - R

Oregon:
Gordon Smith - R

Pennsylvania:
Rick Santorum - R
Arlen Specter - R

South Carolina:
Ernest Hollings - D
Strom Thurmond - R *retired

South Dakota:
Thomas Daschle - D *current Senate minority leader
Tim Johnson - D

Tennessee:
Bill Frist - R *current Senate majority leader
Fred Thompson - R *now out of office

Texas:
Phil Gramm - R * retired
Kay Bailey Hutchison - R

Utah:
Robert Bennett - R
Orrin Hatch - R

Virginia:
George Allen - R
John Warner - R

Washington:
Maria Cantwell - D
West

Virginia:
John Rockefeller - D

Wisconsin:
Herbert Kohl - D

Wyoming:
Michael Enzi - R
Craig Thomas - R

Nay: 23 (21 Democrats=42%, 1 Republican=2%, 1 Independent=100%)

California:
Barbara Boxer - D

Florida:
Bob Graham - D *has announced will seek Democratic nomination for president in 2004

Hawaii:
Daniel Akaka - D
Daniel Inouye - D

Illinois:
Richard Durbin - D

Maryland:
Barbara Mikulski - D
Paul Sarbanes - D

Massachusetts:
Edward Kennedy - D

Michigan:
Carl Levin - D *author of two defeated amendements to bill that would have restricted use of force
Debbie Stabenow - D

Minnesota:
Mark Dayton - D
Paul David Wellstone - D *deceased

New Jersey:
Jon Corzine - D

New Mexico:
Jeff Bingaman - D

North Dakota:
Kent Conrad - D

Oregon:
Ron Wyden - D

Rhode Island:
Lincoln Chafee - R
Jack Reed - D

Vermont:
James Jeffords - I
Patrick Leahy - D

Washington:
Patty Murray- D

West Virginia:
Robert Byrd - D

Wisconsin:
Russ Feingold - D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newsguyatl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. awesome!
i knew a DUer would pull through on this...

thanks!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. Looks like your "House" are actually Senate Yes votes
'Cause they're all Senators. Both lists.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. See my corrected votes above
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shirlden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
25. Why are we hacking away at the Demos ?
There were many in Congress on both sides of the aisle who knew the truth about * agression pact with the PNAC. If not, then we have some of the stupidist, uncaring, self-serving, humans in the world in our gov. So, did they vote their conscience, their ignorance, or their career ?? I say the later two. That brave little handfull that voted no should be enshined in an American Hall of Fame. How incredibly sad.....there are so few with balls and a conscience.

At the next election we should paper each and every state and district with pictures of the reps with blood dripping from their hands.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. How many of us knew, with certainty, it was a sham?
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 09:25 PM by Redleg
I believe that no DUer knew for sure about the situation. Many of us were certainly sceptical of Bush, Inc.'s claims but any of us who declares to have always known the "truth" is just blowing smoke up our behinds.

So people who say "how could the dem congressmen and women support the war when we knew it was a sham" are mostly talking from their asses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I knew it was a sham - a lot of us did
There were articles aplenty that said that the CIA warned Bush that he was about to tell a lie in the SOTU speech. I read one where Scott Ritter said that they had no WMDs, that they were destroyed by '98. He said that all they had was some unweaponized anthrax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. You knew with certainty? I say bullshit to that.
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 09:24 PM by Redleg
I was sceptical but I didn't claim to know one way or the other. Certainly there was a lot of info out there (such as Scott Ritter's) suggesting there was not an imminent threat. There was also some info suggesting otherwise. I did not believe Bush and his buddies had made a good enough case to launch a pre-emptive war on Iraq but I didn't know with certainty and thought the UN weapons inspectors should go in and find out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Just curious...
What information did you see that convinced you that Iraq might be an "imminent threat"....Not talking about Smirk and Rumfilled ASSERTIONS. I'm talking about factual data.

BTW, the CIA came out over and over again in the press saying that Iraq is not an imminent threat.

I'm wondering where you got your data.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. I never said they were an imminent threat. Read my post before
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 09:37 PM by Redleg
attacking. I stated that no person should be able to say, WITH CERTAINTY, that they knew all along the whole thing was a sham.

I felt that the evidence made available to the public did not suggest that Iraq was any kind of threat to the U.S. and that a pre-emptive attack on Iraq was both morally wrong and would lead to worse problems rather than a reduction in terrorism

What I am pissed off about are DUers and others claiming they knew all along and therefore why didn't their elected officials know the whole thing was a sham. There is a difference between having a hunch or gut feeling versus actually knowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Gonna make me quote ya?
Certainly there was a lot of info out there (such as Scott Ritter's) suggesting there was not an imminent threat. There was also some info suggesting otherwise.

"Otherwise" having the common meaning of "the opposite".

The point is, it wasn't about the alleged WMD in any event. It was about the "imminent threat" which had NO evidence of any kind for it WHATSOVER. It was made up in speeches by the PNAC.

Show me one link for the alleged threats being "imminent" that are fact based and not allegatons by the warmongering nazi junta who took over this country, aided by their sycophantic Dem sympathizers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Didn't Bush and his boys make that argument?
That is information, albeit not info of high reliability. You just pointed out that PNAC made the same statements. That too is information. I never said I believed the info, but I, probably unlike you, was willing to listen to arguments by many people before deciding what I thought should be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. This is sad
It is important to know the difference between assertions and facts.

It appears that you are basing your case for the excuse for the Dems that they relied on PNAC assertions and not data vetted by the CIA which contradicted them.

I believe it's important to make that distinction. Apparently, you do not.

We simply differ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. What is sad is your determination to misstate what I say.
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 11:13 PM by Redleg
No piece of intelligence is perfectly reliable. No person's knowledge about the "facts" is perfect either. Some of the CIA assessments about the threat were really assertions about what they thought were the facts and how Saddam Hussein might behave toward us based on past behavior, empirical facts (such as the existence or absence of WMD), etc.

One more point: how do you know what constitutes a "fact" in this situation? Have you been to Iraq? Do you know the thoughts of the congresspeople who supported the resolution? Do you know what they were told? Did you know the reliability of the intelligence?

As I have stated before, which you apparently ignored, is that I believed the preponderance of information did not suggest that Iraq was an imminent threat to our country.

I am not making excuses for any Democrats- they can make their own excuses. I just don't like the smug certainty of so many Democrat haters here at DU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. I appreciate your need to protect Democrats
but the YES voters made the wrong choice

I believe ALL YES voters (Repub and Dem) knew exactly what was what but decided they couldn't swing a NO with the 9/11 hysteria squarely in place. That's a valid political calculation, but not much in the way of a principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. I'm not protecting Democrats as much as I am attacking those
of you who claim to have always known the reasons for war with Iraq were bogus. It is one thing to have healthy scepticism and another to know something with "certainty." After all, Bush claimed certainty when he made the allegations against Iraq in the first place.

I do agree that many Dems may have made their decisions for political reasons rather than based on the principles of the "just war."

I also believe some of the Dems who voted Yes for the resolution also expected Bush to allow the UN weapons inspectors to do a thourough search and after that, expected Bush would go back to congress and get authorization to launch an attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
55. P - N - A - C
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 10:21 PM by steviet_2003
i read about the pnac which put out their foreign policy paper (which i read) in 2000 before the chimp was even selected. i KNEW what their plans were and was on the lookout for the lies, and they came. for every leak that came out there was opposing info buried on the back pages or internet. i would hope that a sharp pol would know what is going on.

btw: authorized for political, not security reasons. quite obvious.

on edit, and after reading farther down the page, there is a valid point to the argument that at the time in the post 9/11 fervor that not voting for would be perceived as political suicide. i also agree that some or many felt that the authorizaton meant (i wish i had the exact terminology here) exhausting ALL peaceful means. read: un approval. hey, we are really all on the same side here, aren't we??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
67. I knew with enough certainty that NO WAR WAS WARRANTED
I knew at 99+% certainty. The only thing that niggled at my mind was that Bush was so adamant that I started to go into a bit of cognitive dissonance: "well, maybe he does know something...." And then I'd jerk myself back to sense and say: But why are the UN and all our allies and all Saddam's neighbors unconvinced? THEY have intelligence operations too, some of them pretty darned sophisticated -- sophisticated enough to have warned us about 9-11.

There were loads and loads of people both in and out of current CIA, DIA and Military positions who told us that Iraq was not an imminent threat.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. a presentation of all the evidence at the time suggested that...
there was no real justification for attacking Iraq the way we did. I felt that way from August of last year. Iraq has ALWAYS been a political issue for Bush and his misadministration. The "threat to the security of the United States" did not exist with respect to Iraq.

Oh they knew...they knew very well, and then they made political decisions themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Agreed, the evidence suggested there was no imminent threat
from Iraq. There is a difference between saying the evidence suggested versus saying "I knew all along this war was bogus."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. ok...I'll say it "I knew the war was bogus"
Saddam Hussein has been in place since the late 1960's (and in the halls of power long before that) We've furnished Saddam and Iraq with the weapons and the abilities to use them and make more. Democrats and Republicans have known that Saddam had no weapons, no weapons program, and no intention of using them or selling them. They knew that in 1998 when the weapons inspectors were PULLED OUT (not kicked out) because there was nothing left. High-level defectors, scientists, and even another of Saddam's sons told intelligence that there was little pursuit of chemical weapons programs, no pursuit of nuclear weapons, no pursuit of weapons delivery systems. These things were known to the intelligence community for some time, yet the need to get rid of Saddam (for some reason) outweighed reason, common sense, and facts. I guess it wouldn't be palatable to know that we created the monster we now kill more and more Iraqi citizens for.

We went to war for invalid reasons and lied to the international community about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. You knew with certainty? How is that possible?
That is not logically possible since you did not go to Iraq and search for WMDs- unless you would like to say you did and that you are omniscient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. come on...does 2+2=4 mean the reality is somewhere in the 3's?
Fact is, this war wouldn't have EVER happened without 9/11 (and a commensurately cowed opposition)

Yes, I did know. I do know. PLUS, there was a LOT of time between the War resolution vote and the beginning of the war where questions could have been answered. Dems didn't do anything during the interim either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #49
63. How much of what you know WITH CERTAINTY is influenced by
the hindsight bias? You can yammer on about how you knew but we both know you only had a hunch based on the information you received. I am willing to admit that I didn't know and that I suspected Bush was manipulating us. But that was a hunch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
72. so, who is accountable to make the hard decisions?
when we elected Democrats to represent us, weren't they supposed to figure out the best thing for the situation and act accordingly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
27. I refuse to judge them too harshly
I think they each made the decision themselves. There's no doubt that some were considering the political ramifications.
There were some things that appeared obvious from behind my monitor in the safety of my home, however since I have never been in the position where I was responsible for the well being of the citizens of a country, I think I'll sit out on the sanctimony here.
I didn't like that they voted in favor of the action. But, I'm not the only person in the world. MANY people around me were still kind of ruffled over 9\11, and wanted to go into Iraq because they believed there was a threat. I have a lot of friends who opposed it, but truly in Missouri, I doubt that opposition was widespread at the time.
If a senator does what the majority of her mail tells her to do, and we agree with her, she's doing her job not pandering. What if it was half and half, and she her priority was to make people feel safe and she believed voting in favor of the war would make them feel safe.
There are thousands of possibilities for what went into these senators reasoning. Why do people here pretend that the only possibilities are the most unattractive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Yeah, just put em to bed without supper
After all, on the altar of their political careers they've sent thousands to their deaths.

Maybe there is justice after all, since their little popularity contest ploy has backfired on them like a motherfucker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. popularity contests?
If a senator votes the way you want them to because of public pressure before an election, are they trying to win a popularity contest or are they doing what is "right"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. If you will recall, it was mucho
popular back before the 2002 elections to swoon over Smirk and his cabal......doncha remember that?

It was easy to do...support the invasion. It was HARD to oppose it even though some courageous Dems did.

Sorry, didn't know you were a supporter of the invasion. I must be lost and on the wrong board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. That's a harsh accusation.
Maybe you don't belong at DU...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. Perhaps not
(looking for ignore button)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #52
64. I hope you find it. Apparently you are too god-damned smart
to consider that you may not be omniscient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #45
51. Thats an EXCELLENT point
How does one explain the Dems that said NO if there was so much conjecture? If there were so many hard choices to make, why did a lot of Dems make the one that was in opposition to the war?

Yep...politics and political (mis)calculation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #51
65. Good, now go vote for Nader- he will fix everything.
EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #65
73. blaming other people again?
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 11:57 PM by Terwilliger
you're like Republicans and George W. Bush "oh, well he didn't actually see the final report...Condi Rice didn't tell him what he needed to know...he just repeated the words someone else gave him...er, all the while he was making decisions about what to do about the yellowcake...even though it didnt exist..."

Democrats are responsible for their own actions too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. Another example of psychological projection...
by linking me to Bush. I recall the wingers did something similar when they linked Daschle with Saddam Hussein.

As for finger pointing it seems to me that you point the finger of blame at Democratic elected officials on an almost daily basis. I guess you smart agitators can play the blame game but the rest of us can't.

If you will carefully re-read what I wrote, I never excused Bush for his deceitful ways and I never felt he made the case for preemptive war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
74. lol
you lose!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. Is this a game or competition?
If you all hate Dems so much why the f@ck are you here at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #45
75. re read
If it is your pet issue supported\opposed under public pressure does the cynicism that they were just trying to win reelection hold, or in that case are they doing what's right and do you leave it at that? I wasn't in favor of the invasion, that doesn't mean I can't be consistant in my analyses of their votes. The deal is there are always dozens of things influencing these votes. Trying to understand the one you hate the most by setting it up with the most cynical possibility is just another way to demonize Democrats. I know a lot of people take great delight in going beyond observation and basic criticism, but it gets really tiresome to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLibra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
35. I think some had serious doubts but they voted for the war just in......
.....case their doubts turned out to be wrong. I too had doubts but was LIMITEDLY in favor of the war until it became clear that Bush & Co were going this alone and against the UN. That is when I completely turned against the war. Even though some among us are so perfect as to always know what is right and what is wrong I definitely can't judge anyone else too harshly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
39. I gotta go with a political CYA
Edited on Sun Jul-27-03 09:41 PM by maine_raptor
after all as LBJ (another great wartime pResident) "I rather have him on the inside pissing out, than on the outside pissing in."

edited because my fingers go faster than my mind at times
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youngred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
54. Of course it was their/our security
voting against it would have made them sacrificial lambs at the ballot box and put Bush even more firmly in control...so in a way I guess they did protect national security
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. nope
standing against it would have broken the pubs and swayed public opinion (at the very least, there would have been a true public debate about all the implicatins of the war)

I'll give credit to those who voted NO in the face of the opposition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loyalsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #60
77. Could have gone either way
There's no telling how it would have played out, and definitely no telling what kinds of tricks busco would pull to get it if it hadn't passed.
Suppose some of those senators were more even more suspicious of * than we are. If they considered the possibility of him wanting this war bad enough to allow another terrorist attack to happen as a back up plan, how could they live with themselves voting against it? There are more ways to look at this than any of us could come up with. It's quite possible that some were motivated exclusively by politics. It's unreasonable to use such a broad brush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. Ok that makes no sense.
That just makes no sense at ALL. What if they did believe that Bush would LIHOP again? They should LET him go to war to avoid that? What if Bush wanted to attack say, Libya next? Or Iran? North Korea? Hell, Canada? Should they vote in favor so Bush doesn't have an excuse to LIHOP again?

You are REALLY stretching here. For the life of me I cant figure out why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
56. most of them made the best decision they could, imo
Even now, the WMD situaion isn't certain, and it definitely wasn't certain back in the fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
57. A simple question...
How could a Democrat believe ANYTHING coming out of the mouth of an administration who cheated it's way into office by intentionally destroying the sanctity of our electoral process?

In the words of Mr. Bush, "you are either with us or against us". Truer words have never been spoken.

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedda_foil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-27-03 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
69. The resolution was totally bogus.
If there were an imminent threat, the President always has the authority to take the country to war. The War Powers Act requires Congressional authorization after the fact (2 months, I believe) to prevent Vietnam-style abuses.

The resolution, passed months before any war was remotely likely, and giving * authority to make war on whatever terms he saw fit, as long as he went to the UN first, was a sham.

A second resolution should have been required in the event * decided (as he did) to do an end run around the UN. That's what Byrd, Durbin and 20 other Dems wanted. That's why they voted no, though many of them were among the most influential and in-the-know Senators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jiacinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-28-03 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
76. Probably a mixture of both I would say
nt
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 Dec 22nd 2014, 04:56 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