The Democrats who were responsible for the Vietnam War

[WildEyedLiberal]

Many Americans took to the streets in the 1960s to protest an unnecessary war against a country that never attacked us. It's worth remembering which craven Democrats voted for that immoral and illegal war and helped get us stuck in the hellhole of Nam for ten years.

Among those who voted for the wasteful Vietnam War by voting YEA on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution:

Eugene McCarthy

George McGovern

Oh sure, once it was obvious the war was unpopular, both of them conveeeeeniently became "anti-war." Well guess what? Too little too late! THEY helped get us there and therefore any backtracking against the war they did after the fact is immaterial and irrelevant. They clearly are responsible for the war. The blood of 58,000 American soldiers and countless Vietnamese civilians is on their hands. Big words after the fact don't erase the fact that they voted for the war! They gave a green light to the war and that must never be forgotten or forgiven.




(note: this post contains irony)

[LoZoccolo]

1. Recommended.

Eat it, whiners.

[More Than A Feeling]

12. You seem to be uncomfortable with people who have opinions different than yours

as though there were some kind of absolute standard that made you automatically right, and them automatically wrong and how dare they question that? While this might be possible in science, in politics such standards are rare, and always open to challenge. We went through this once before with our little debate over voting for primary candidates. Why so defensive?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Wrong.

Lose the straw man and we'll talk.

[More Than A Feeling]

22. "Eat it, whiners"

Ok, why did you say that, then?

[LoZoccolo]

24. Because people are using it to impose unrealistic demands on politicians.

Ones that do nothing for anyone. I don't know about anything else, but I've had enough of the Republicans' shit to put up with pests who aren't here to get anything done.

[politicasista]

27. Exactly n/t

[LoZoccolo]

41. Thanks, you give me a lot of support.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Holding politicians to higher standards seems to me a worthy endeavor.

My guess is that democrats who voted for the IWR who later help to bring the troops home will get all the credit in the world...when they actually bring the troops home.

[LoZoccolo]

30. No it isn't.

Try to guess why I'd say that. You will find great reward in the journey toward figuring it out.

[More Than A Feeling]

64. Condescending much?

Anyway, the reason is that you want to hold liberal votes just by being the less worse option than Republicans and which would allow Democratic politicians to do whatever they think they have to reach out to more conservative people. In other words, you only value liberals in so far as they vote, and the rest of the time you wish they'd shut up because you've internalized the Republican demonization of the word liberal, and mistakenly believe that the American people don't want the things that liberals want. It isn't so much that you disagree with liberals (because as you previously noted, you just want to win. If you thought liberal ideas and methods were winners, you might support them even if you disagreed).

But the problem is, liberal votes don't belong to you. There is no divine right of any politician to the votes of citizens. So what you have to do is convince liberals is that their only hope of not seeing the nation driven into a ditch is for God's sake, don't actually ask our politicians to take a bold stand on anything, or for anything else they think would make this country better. Just go along, and sit quietly while the same "reasonable" people whose unprincipled hackery has continued to fail to hold Bush accountable are the only voices heard. The perverse result is that the people most loyal get much less consideration than the people Democratic politicians can't count on.

These days, its harder than ever to convince liberals to sit quietly. They've been uppity. They nearly took out Joe Lieberman, the epitome of "reasonableness". Now they think they've gone and helped to restore the Democratic Party to power, just because they got their candidate as DNC chair, and spent a ton of money supporting challengers, and generally using people power to win elections. It undermines your whole stereotype of liberals as people who talk, but don't actually win like the "reasonable" politicians you admire.

There, I think that is an excellent dissection of your motives. Now, why don't you try to guess why I think holding politicians accountable is a good thing?

[WCGreen]

135. Or better yet...

Who cares.....

[mzmolly]

57. Higher standards are one thing - unattainable standards of constant

progressive perfection are another.

[jgraz]

109. 23 Senators and 133 Reps attained those "unnattainable" standards

by voting against the war. Not progressive perfection, just putting conscience above politics.

[mzmolly]

151. You confused my "unattainable" comment with the war vote. Here is what I said

is unattainable > "constant progressive perfection."

[dionysus]

99. and who the hell do think you are calling whiners?

what is the point you are trying to prove? a lot of people invested a lot of time trying to get Kerry elected. And guess what.. it DIDN'T happen. And you call US whiners!!! gimme a toke of what you're smoking bra...

and insulting the Liberals of the party makes you look like double the asshat

[LoZoccolo]

141. I'm not insulting liberals per se. n/t

[Cha]

148. You

eat it..you whine as much as anybody.

[beachmom]

2. Yep. Them and the majority of Americans who supported the

escalation of Vietnam in 1965. Hey didn't that warmonger bastard Fulbright also vote for the war? There's a special place in hell for a guy like that. So he had a few hearings and allowed veterans opposed to the war to speak out. That doesn't mean a DAMNED thing compared to his vote.

[blm]

3. Even the best Democratic lawmakers are lied to by those they should trust.

When a Dem lawmaker can't trust the word of a Democratic president, well, shame on that president.

[beachmom]

4. Actually, google brings out some interesting history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._William_Fulbright

On August 7, 1964, a unanimous House of Representatives and all but two senators passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which led to the further escalation of the Vietnam War. Fulbright, who voted for the resolution, would later write:

Many Senators who accepted the Gulf of Tonkin resolution without question might well not have done so had they foreseen that it would subsequently be interpreted as a sweeping Congressional endorsement for the conduct of a large-scale war in Asia.

Gee, the guy is JUST spinning. He should have KNOWN.


Oh, and this article talks about Vietnam and Iraq:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Art...

However, many of the congressional representatives who might be inclined to oppose the war are paralyzed by their vote for the Iraq resolution. They know that critics will call them hypocrites if they say something now.

But in this, too, they ignore history, which demonstrates that there is no dishonor in turning against a decision that was based on misleading information. For strength they can look to the example of U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not only voted for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, he introduced it, because Johnson asked him to. This did not stop him from becoming an initial lone dissenter as the U.S. sent more troops to Vietnam. In fact, he became increasingly furious as he realized that he was duped into helping escalate the conflict, and he opened hearings in 1968 to investigate the Tonkin incident.

It took tremendous courage to stand up to a president in the same political party during an era when being against a war was almost universally considered unpatriotic and counter-cultural.

Of course, that's all a bogus argument. Because, you know, since Fulbright voted for the war, he had ZERO moral capital to try to end it.

[Parche]

5. lie

But they were lied to by LBJ

[beachmom]

7. Awful, isn't it. But, of course:

THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, since some hippies suspected it was bogus based on NO EVIDENCE, just a feeling, you see. That's the standards going on around here, so it's time to hold McGovern, Eugene McCarthy, and Fulbright accountable for their heinous congressional careers.

[Parche]

17. known

That is a touchy subject, back then a lot of things were not known,or classified
and much better to 'trump' or 'lie' to Congress and get away with it.

[beachmom]

19. Oh, I hope you understood my posts as being ironic

I most certainly don't blame those senators who voted yes on the Gulf of Tonkin, yet were incredibly vocal in ending the war. In the end, these men were the good guys, and nobody now condemns them for the Gulf of Tonkin vote. The blame rests squarely with LBJ and Nixon (for prolonging it needlessly).

[Parche]

44. oh yes

Yes yes yes, sometimes I miss the points!!!

Senators probably think they are doing the right thing, then get lied to , and feel like
crap for voting that way ...........

[1932]

133. Interestingly, the lie was only the day the US were shot at in the Gulf

according to Errol Morris's documentary about Robert McNamara, apparently the US were shot at a couple days before, but were so shocked, it took them days to confirm beyond a doubt that it had happened. Because they lost the moment of urgency, it seems they fabricated this second event to create outrage.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. It's a weak parralell... seems to me. Only two.....

...senators, Gruening and Morse, opposed Gulf of Tonkin. And the public sentiment for escalation post Gulf of T. was probably in excess of 90%.

By contrast, 22 senators saw thru the war propaganda re. Iraq, plus a majority of the DEM house caucus, plus about 40% of the general American public , plus about *90%* of the general public in the industrialized world.

The circumstances being so DISsimilar, comparing McCarthy, McGovern and Fulbright to such as Clinton and Lieberman (ugh!), if such is your intention, would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[beachmom]

9. No, she is referring to 2 (and I'll add Fulbright) famously anti-war

senators who also voted for the Gulf of Tonkin. There are now many anti-war senators who voted for the IWR. These are the people I have in mind. And if you read history, it shows that those who went along with that resolution were vocal in ending the war. And that's how it will be today. (Here's hoping Chuck Hagel actually DOES something in the Senate to back up the sentiment in his recent Op-Ed)

Obviously, Lieberman and Hillary are not anti-war, so they're not in the equation. I personally welcome Hillary coming out saying she made a mistake with the vote and supports bringing our troops home. I will thank her if she does that and count her as one more ally to end the war.

I'm not disillusioned enough to think Lieberman will EVER admit his error.

[Mass]

10. 10 did not vote, among which Teddy Kennedy.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98

[WildEyedLiberal]

80. Thanks, I was looking for a roll call but couldn't find one

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Here's a difference: The Democrats who voted this time around

could have learned from what happened with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The senators who voted on that resolution didn't have the benefit of such recent history to learn from.

[Mass]

11. "Remember the Maine"? This was not the first time a war was started on a lie.

and 1905 was only 60 years earlier.

[bobbie]

165. Most, if not all, wars are started on lies

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

[beachmom]

16. You're missing the point

The same Democrats who voted yes to the Gulf of Tonkin ENDED the Vietnam War. Yet there are people right on this board acting like Democrats who voted yes for the IWR should not be allowed to say "hey, I was wrong, let's end this war". That they are condemned and must sit in the corner and be stoned by purists. This is not how the war was ended in Vietnam, and this foolish argument will not end the Iraq War today.

History puts those arguments on its head. Anyone anti-war should be welcomed by us. Period.

[WildEyedLiberal]

55. Ding ding ding, we have a winnah ovah heah

Thanks for making my point in 5 sentences.

[Uncle Joe]

72. How many Americans knew the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie,

the minute LBJ uttered the words as compared to aluminum tubes and uranium from Niger?

I am just your average Joe, but I had already read about the tubes not being fit for the purpose Bush claimed. I had read about the other disclaimers as well only to hear Bush/Cheney cite them as absolutes. So if I and others could see all these red flags, why didn't our Senators? Furthermore if Bush would so obviously lie during the State of the Union, how could he be trusted with the IWR?

[WildEyedLiberal]

75. Bush lied about the yellowcake uranium in the 2003 SOTU address

Two months after the IWR vote - so obviously the yellowcake scandal had no bearing on the vote.

Many American people did not want to escalate war in Vietnam, either. There was a committed anti-war minority in 1964 just as there was in 2002. It's not like everyone was hoodwinked into thinking Vietnam was a great idea and there was no anti-war movement.

The point is, if you're going to argue that Democratic Senators' efforts to end the war should be dismissed because they voted for IWR, then you must also similarly reject the anti-war campaigns of both McCarthy and McGovern, since by that logic they "should have known" and therefore their later anti-war positions are somehow made invalid.

[Uncle Joe]

81. I first became aware of Bush's lie during the State of the Union, however

I had read of the contradictory evidence weeks or months before this. I imagine if Bush was speaking in absolutes to us, he was doing the same to the Senate. This contradictory evidence had been out for a while, the State of the Union was just the most obvious blatant lie.

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. I'm just saying I don't think the uranium was part of the debate when IWR happened

Remember, there were five months between the IWR vote and the invasion of Iraq. I think some people here think that the IWR passed the Senate and the next day we were bombing Iraq. Many of the Senators who voted yes on IWR because they believed Powell's testimony and because they wanted to get inspectors in there used the next five months to urge Bush to keep his word and go through the UN, like the IWR mandated he do. The yellowcake and the increasingly nasty ultimatums given by Bush to Saddam in the early months of 2003 all occured despite many Democrats speaking out against invasion. Of course, the Downing Street Minutes show us that Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq come hell or high water. Bush abruptly pulled the inspectors out in early March and commenced bombing in clear violation of the understood resolution, and the blame for starting the war thus lies squarely on his shoulders.

[Uncle Joe]

85. I believe, it was the aluminum tubes which jumped out at me

I had read some report stating they were not suited for the purpose Bush claimed in the State of the Union, but this article was written long before that date. I don't remember the exact date I first read about the dispute over the tubes, but it seems like it was before the IWR vote.

I agree with you on the point that Bush would have went to war regardless, but the way I look at it, if the Democrats could have stayed unified and convinced a handful of *moderate Republicans to vote it down with them, we would have a Democrat, probably Kerry in the White House today.


* I know, a snowball's chance in Death Valley, but even if they had not and the Democrats had all voted against it, Kerry would have been in a much stronger position in 2004.

[WildEyedLiberal]

86. You're likely right about that, I'm afraid

I mean, I'm not going to argue that IWR was a good vote at all - hell KERRY as well as Edwards, Biden, and Harkin have all said "it was a bad vote and I was wrong to vote for it." But, I understand why they voted the way they did at the time the vote was called. It was a horrible gotcha vote, a damned if you do and damned if you don't vote, which of course was precisely what BushCo wanted. Sigh.

But, and this was the real point of my OP, as mistaken as the IWR vote may have been, it's water under the bridge now, and I support any Democrat who has said "we need to get out of Iraq" and is offering a credible plan to do so. I think Kerry and Edwards should be given consideration for their plans to end the war today, not constantly castigated for a four year old vote that had no real world impact on Bush's decision to go to war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. The anti-war minority was MUCH smaller in 1964 than in 2002

MUCH smaller. It was basically Marxists and members of traditionally pacifist groups, such as the Quakers. There were NO mass demonstrations against the Vietnam War before about 1965, and opposition didn't reach the level of opposition we now see against the Iraq War until after 1968.

[beachmom]

76. The IWR was in October 2002. The lies in the SOTU were not exposed

until way after the vote. I also read SOME skepticism, although mostly about a tie between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. Yet (call me an idiot, if you want) I was concerned about WMD in Iraq and thought getting U.N. weapons inspecters back in was a good idea. I felt the whole thing was "speak softly, and carry a big stick". And it really was, until Bush SUDDENLY ordered the weapons inspecters out of Iraq and attacked the country. It was a betrayal to the members of Congress, the international community, the American people, and even the Iraqi people, because those damned inspections weren't complete. This is just the way I remember it unfolding.


Edited to add: okay, slightly freaked out by WEL's similar answer above. I guess great minds think alike.

[bobbie]

164. Yup, twas a big fib by the big fibber

Gee, who knew that Lyndon Johnson, a man who helped murder President Kennedy and led the cover up, would *lie*.

[dionysus]

100. nope, not missing the point

Kerry and Edwards have admitted the error, many Dems still won't

[beachmom]

102. Oh, agreed -- more should say they're wrong, and help try to

get us out of there as soon as possible.

[PassingFair]

126. You go and sell that to the 600,000 DEAD IRAQI'S

and 3000 DEAD AMERICANS that their
vote authorized.

It was a CYNICAL vote.
They thought it was a WIN/WIN
vote for them.

If bush had pulled off "shock and awe",
we'd be ROLLING in stolen oil and we'd
all be drivin' our SUV's into the SUNSET
right now.

The more likely version, which we are
experiencing...could be sloughed off
to "bad intel" or "they were tricked".

But we KNOW too much. The PEOPLE
knew. WE WATCHED as Colin Powell was
FORCED to take his BULLSHIT documents to the UN.
We SAW Scott Ritter rail-roaded. We READ
Joe Wilson's report. We KNEW about the ALUMINUM TUBES
and the WEATHER TRAILERS.
They WENT ALONG WITH IT because they
didn't understand the power of the
"internets".

They have blood on their hands.

The republicans are paying at the hands of the voters.


Our wrong voting dems should be held accountable in some capacity too.

[pnwmom]

176. The October IWR vote was a win-win situation for the Bush administration,

not the Democrats.

And the war would have gone on, regardless of that vote. Why? Because the American public was still strongly backing Bush in his "war against terrorism" and still reeling from the shock of 9/11. If the Democrats had voted solidly against the IWR we would lost the House and Senate by even greater margins.

And two months later, with their new huge majorities in the House and the Senate, the Republicans would have easily passed their new, condition-free IWR.

[SaveElmer]

13. Very apt...and accurate analogy...

You are about to get flamed unmercifully...which usually happens when hypocrisy is pointed out!

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Why is it hypocrisy?

Why are we bound by what Democrats thought of George McGovern 30 years ago? How do you know if McGovern was in the senate today, and did the same thing, we wouldn't feel the same way about him as we do about some of the other senators who voted for the IWR.

[beachmom]

18. Because people put McGovern up as a hero now

And the guy VOTED FOR THE WAR. But he had the good sense to realize it was wrong, turned against it, and be an incredible dove. Yet the purists don't even want to hear from Democrats who voted yes to the IWR, even though many of them are very anti-war and want to bring the troops home. They're ON OUR SIDE, but that's not good enough, which is just plain foolish thinking, and is not backed up by history.

[Pyrzqxgl]

71. a lot of us did the same thing back in the 1960s

I went Peace and Freedom for awhile after Bobby and came back to the Democrats because I realized electing Nixon would make things worse (which it did). I remember arguing against McGovern for his Gulf of Tonkin vote. I was wrong then and I think I'd be wrong now to argue against any anti-war Senator who was originally pro war. Remember Wayne Morse who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was once a Republican Senator who changed parties and became a liberal Democrat.

[SaveElmer]

28. Not the point the original OP was reacting too...

There have been many here that are not prepared to give John Kerry his due based on his current work to end the Iraqi War because he is one of the ones who voted for the IWR...even though his vote was not a vote for war.

Those very same people seem to be able to get by George McGoverns vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and credit him with his later efforts to get the US out of VietNam.

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. Exactly

Thanks for getting it SaveElmer... you can always be counted on as a voice of rationality round these parts...

By the way, did you know you're part of my "tag team"?

[dionysus]

101. if you two think you're a little mini club of clever...

man are you making asses of yourselves!

[SaveElmer]

104. I wasn't aware that disagreeing with the prevailing DU sentiment...

Constituted "Making an Ass of ourselves"

I'm not aware of any gratuitous insulting or disparaging of character on my part of anyone I have been conversing with.

Funny how the 5 or 10 percent of folks here that don't move in lockstep with every prevailing left wing wind that blows through here are accused of being some sort of organized cabal...yet the 90% of DU'ers who constitute a hallelujah chorus to every one of these are not!

It is a characteristic of extremes at both ends of the political spectrum to look at any dissent from their orthodoxy as a personal assault, and those that so disagree are immedietely cast as the enemy!

[WildEyedLiberal]

118. Hilarious, isn't it?

[WildEyedLiberal]

117. You're the one making an ass of yourself

I'm a Kerry supporter. SaveElmer is a Hillary Clinton supporter. That we are some sooper-secret "mini club" of any sort is probably the most hysterical thing I've heard in a long time.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[beachmom]

21. Um, it's a mirror post from yesterday that condemned Dems

who voted yes for the IWR but are now anti-war. That only people who did not vote for the IWR (and mostly, weren't even in office) are allowed to offer solutions to get us out of Iraq, even if the "yes" Dems offer ideas to get our troops out FASTER. History is sometimes a good teaching method. I can vouch that WEL is very much so a lib and fiercely against this terrible war.

[dogman]

35. But there were fewer Dems fooled this time.

And some of them because they listened to
Snip>"people who did not vote for the IWR (and mostly, weren't even in office) are allowed to offer solutions to get us out of Iraq."
and some of those "people" were very much liberals who were fiercely against this terrible war. It's tooo bad some of those who are now against the war weren't listening until the polls got their attention. That's a reason "professional" politicians hold little appeal for me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. You could say the same of McGovern or McCarthy

Which is my whole point. If "voting for it" is an albatross that one must wear around one's neck forever and a day, then you'd think it would be mentioned more when people talk about the "anti-war" campaigns of both men, in 1968 and 1972. But, it's not, because people then listened to any voice speaking out against the war without applying the ludicrous test of "but they voted for it, therefore their word means nothing!" that liberals and progressives seem so keen to do today.

[dogman]

67. Who warned McGovern or McCarthy?

The IWR supporters had good advice that they ignored. Why wasn't Kennedy or Feingold duped this time? The most difficult for me to understand was Kerry. He had testified in the Fullbright hearings and had even voted against the Gulf War. Understand, this is not a litmus test for me, I believe in redemption. I am simply pointing out a difference and responding to an inference above. But everything weighs differently on different peoples scales. I am more disturbed by those who have not admitted they were wrong, such as Lieberman.

[WildEyedLiberal]

77. That's the thing, neither side voted as a bloc with a uniform reason

As Kerry explained his vote at the time, he trusted Colin Powell's testimony about WMDs in Iraq and voted to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Even the nay votes were for different reasons - perhaps some were more (rightly as it turned out) suspicious that Bush would NOT follow the provisions set forth for him. Byrd voted against it solely because he doesn't believe Congress can authorize force without a formal declaration of war. Kerry's trust was clearly misplaced and he has since said as much, and acknowledged that his vote was wrong.

In 1964 McNamara delivered false testimony very akin to Powell's which convinced many liberal Senators, including McCarthy and McGovern and Fulbright, that Vietnam was a threat, even though it clearly was not. Of course, what's clear in hindsight and what's clear in the heat of the moment are two very different things.

Since it has been proven that the IWR was built on lies, it is the moral responsibility of those who voted yes to acknowledge that. Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Harkin and a few others have acknowledged that it was a bad vote and the case for war was based on lies. But honestly, this whole debate is dumb, because we are IN Iraq NOW, and we would be in Iraq regardless of the results of the IWR vote. If any Democrat wishes to be taken credibly now, he or she must confront the reality of the situation in Iraq and come up with a plan to extract the troops.

[beachmom]

79. Kerry wanted U.N. weapons inspecters back in Iraq

He was ASSURED by Colin Powell that Saddam had WMD and that they would do this thing right, and NOT rush to war. You know, something happened between Vietnam and the Iraq War, and it was called 9/11 -- yes, the president has played that awful day to death, but go back to 2002, OCTOBER 2002, which was right after the one year anniversary of 9/11 (I still remember it). People were scared, and we sure as hell didn't want WMD in the hands of terrorists. That was the context of the vote, and I understand why he voted that way -- but now that we know SO MUCH MORE, it is obvious that the president manipulated intelligence AND betrayed the spirit of the IWR that Kerry has now disavowed his vote and is fighting like hell to get our troops home.

So, no, I don't think this is the same. PLUS, Kerry trusted Powell who had learned the lessons of Vietnam. With Powell in the government, Kerry thought they would never make the same mistakes LBJ made. But it ends up that Powell was cast aside and disregarded. There was no way Kerry could know all of this at the time.

[Zodiak]

87. I forgave Kerry a long time ago...

when he finally realized that he was no longer part of a functional government (about 6 mo. after election 2004) and started to fight back. He's a damned good senator, so it is easy to forgive him.

However, and the people (66%) who were for the war or supported the Democrats when they voted for the war need to know this, there was plenty of information available before the war that would convince a person that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaida, had no weapons of mass destruction, and had just changed his oil sales to euros (article after article, in fact). Millions took to the strets on much more than a hunch, but a certitude that the American people were being lied to, and our Senators. When one is being lied to and asked for power, one does not just hand it over or even enable a single step in the process.

Those that voted for the IWR made two mistakes:

1. They trusted people that should not have been trusted.
2. They neglected to do their homework.

Sure, the stakes were high. But that is what our elected leaders are supposed to do. They are supposed to do their homework and trust their own informed judgement precisely when the stakes are high. They are not supposed to fall hero worship with Colin Powell, a man with a checquered past of covering up lies to preserve the mythology of US moral superiority.

This is why some people cannot forgive. War is the most serious thing one can vote for, and the people who voted for the war spent months and months in blindness afterwards, marginalizing those that had known better from the beginning. It left a bad taste in people's mouths, but make no mistake, despite the complaining, those people will still do the right thing when the stakes are high.

I will forgive any Democratic rep who gives up on neoliberalism and comes home to the People they are supposed to represent. This includes those that are calling for a troop withdrawal, but not those that still wish to continue tilting this windmill and subjecting more American soldiers and American dollars to the meatgrinder of our folly. Those representatives can only be willfully ignorant or wish to pander to American jingoism to ensure relection. That is not the mark of a leader.

My opinion, of course.

[Mass]

25. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution increased the presence of troops dramatically.

While it was not the beginning of the presence of troops in VietNam, it was only after 1965 that the troops escalated/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/vietnam.htm

...
Total US Military Personnel in Vietnam Date Total Personnel
31 December 1960 900
31 December 1961 3,200
31 December 1962 11,500
31 December 1963 16,300
31 December 1964 23,300
31 December 1965 184,300
31 December 1966 425,300
31 December 1967 485,600
31 December 1968 536,100
31 December 1969 474,400
31 December 1970 335,800
9 June 1971 250,900
...

(Remember, Nixon came to power in January 1969, so the majority of the troops were sent between the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and Nixon's inauguration).

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[saracat]

23. Brilliant post.Only those who have no appreciation for history

will not appreciate it! Or those who do not understand the political process.Unfortunately, there are a lot of those.And it is really too bad that they choose to form a circular firing squad. What is going to become of these people when the war is over? Some don't have any other issues.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

31. And I don't plan on voting for any of them either

Point? Buehler?

[Tom Joad]

32. McGovern never proposed "benchmarks for success".

McGovern opposed the war much sooner than many Americans. In the mid-60's, way before the polls showed a majority favoring withdraw.

The original post contains historical inaccuracies.

[Mass]

38. It actually does not - It states that ...

They voted for the Tonkin War Resolution, which is true.

By the standard of some on this board (which you are not), the only thing that matters is the IWR vote and they would never vote for somebody who voted for it (everything else equal).

By this standard, they probably would also oppose McGovern and McCarthy.

This said, your opinion seems to be deeper than that, in which case you do not fit the profile the OP is aiming at, but some people on this board do.

[Tom Joad]

33. McGovern's 1972 platform did not call for more troops in Vietnam.

Unlike Kerry's call for more troops in Iraq.

McGovern did not call for the Vietnam war to be managed better, but that it was wrong and immoral.
Kerry has Never said that.

[Mass]

39. I do not know anybody except McCain asking for more troops.

As for Kerry, he has called this war wrong and immoral and I do not think that his main point is that the war should have been manager better.

Actually, McGovern profile is close to Murtha, I imagine. The comparison with Kerry (that you are making) is probably a poor one.

[Tom Joad]

42. Kerry's campaign in 2004 called for more troops.

[Mass]

43. And of course, you can offer a link to that.

I remember hearing him say that they needed to be more troops in the military, idea that is debatable, but I do not remember him saying more troops in Iraq.

I may be mistaken, of course, but I would be happy to see a link. (I heard this story more than once, but I've never seen a source of him saying that).

[Tom Joad]

46. 40 thousand MORE Troops. A big difference from McGovern's platform

Remember also that by this time the Iraq war was already unpopular. Not to mention an illegal, insane act of aggression.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a...

Kerry Calls for More Troops in Iraq, Bolstering U.S. Military

By Jay Newton-Small

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called for 40,000 more U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he would ``modernize our military to match its new missions'' in the war on terror and homeland security.

``I make this simple pledge,'' Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery to veterans and military families in Green Bay, Wisconsin. ``If I am President, I will fight for a constant standard of decency and respect for those who serve their country in our armed forces - on active duty and as veterans.''

The extra troops are needed in Iraq to ease pressure on soldiers and National Guard troops battling insurgents in the Middle Eastern country. Half of the 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists, while the other 20,000 would be combat troops, Kerry said.
_______________________________
Kerry begin to call for withdraw of troops... slowly, in 2005.

[Mass]

48. Thanks. I never saw this.

Anyway, I guess we are speaking of now, and not of two years ago, but it is always interesting to see things I had not seen.

I understand that Kerry's position is not yours. You have always been very clear and principled on this issue.

I think that, as it stands, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Harkin, and a few others are probably the most advanced in the US Senate, but I wonder why nobody has taken the same stand as McGovern? I wonder what stand Sanders will take. It will be interesting and I hope he will bring some life to the Senate.

[ProSense]

49. That's nonsense! Kerry never called for a troop increase in Iraq!

Kerry and Edwards Reunite on Believe in America Tour with a Pledge to Keep the Faith with Those Who Serve

8/5/2004 12:18:00 PM

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Allison Dobson of Kerry-Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800, Web: http://www.johnkerry.com

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Joining up after separate campaign swings on their post-convention "Believe in America" tour, John Kerry and John Edwards Thursday pledged to always keep the faith with those who wear the uniform of the United States.

With America's security facing new threats in the post 9/11 world and our troops stretched too thin, Kerry and Edwards vowed to build a stronger, more secure America by modernizing the military and ensuring our troops, veterans and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Kerry and Edwards remarks came before a large crowd of veterans and supporters assembled to see Kerry and Edwards off on the next leg of their post-convention, cross-country journey. Following their rally, the Democrats joined their families and boarded the train that will take them from the gateway to the West all the way to Arizona.

"We have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons," Kerry said at St. Louis's Union Station. "Today, our military is overextended and our troops are stretched too thin. The administration's answer has been to put band-aids on the problem. They have effectively used a stop-loss policy as a back door draft. They have extended tours of duty, delayed retirements and prevented enlisted personnel from leaving the service. This is not the way to treat America's finest."

Addressed in their new book "Our Plan for America," Kerry and Edwards have a comprehensive plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats we face and to provide our soldiers and their families with the support they need.

As Commander-in-Chief, Kerry will add 40,000 troops to the active duty Army to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts, and he will double the Army's Special Forces capability so they are able to fulfill the critical role they play in America's armed forces. He will also complete the process of transforming our military by equipping, educating and training our troops for the 21st century.

"And while we strengthen our ability to fight terrorism at home and abroad, we will do more to honor the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families," Kerry said. "Our troops and their families are asking for help, and as Harry Truman once said right here in St. Louis, 'We should listen to these voices...there is in them the wisdom of courage and the hope of a new day for the world.'"

Kerry and Edwards will keep faith with those who serve America and their families with a new Military Family Bill of Rights. This bill of rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment.

"We need to do this for our military families - and for all Americans," Kerry said. "We need to honor the values that make us stronger at home and bring us together as one America: faith and family, service and sacrifice, responsibility and opportunity for all."

Now seven days into this post-convention, cross-country tour, Kerry has traveled over 1,700 miles and stormed through the battleground states of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri, while Edwards has made an additional sweep through the South with stops in Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas and Tennessee. Along the way, they have been met by record, October-sized crowds that have braved rainstorms and summer heat to hear more about the Kerry-Edwards plans to make America stronger at home and respected in the world.

The train will take Kerry and Edwards over 1,800 miles, making stops in Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

Presidents Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman once used one of the cars - No. 403 - in the train that will take Kerry and Edwards West.

A NEW MILITARY TO MEET NEW THREATS

Today, our military is overextended and our troops are overburdened. John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions. To accomplish this, they will (1) expand our active duty forces, (2) double America's Special Forces capability and increase other specialized personnel, (3) complete the process of transformation, (4) add homeland security as an additional National Guard mission, and (5) enact a Military Family Bill of Rights to relieve the burden on military families. The Kerry- Edwards Military Family Bill of Rights will provide military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training and the best possible weaponry, armor and state-of-the-art equipment.

Expand America's Active Duty Forces. As president, John Kerry will ensure that our military has sufficient troop strength to protect our national security without placing an undue burden on the men and women of our armed forces. He will:

-- Add 40,000 Troops To The Active Duty Army To Prevent And Prepare For Other Possible Conflicts (not to increase the overall number of soldiers in Iraq). Currently, the Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including "Stop Loss" orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.

Double America's Army Special Forces Capability and Increase Other Specialized Personnel John Kerry and John Edwards recognize the critical role of the Special Forces and other specialized personnel play in America's military. As president, he will:

-- Double The Army's Special Forces Capability By The End Of His First Term. As part of the 40,000 new troops, John Kerry will double Army Special Forces capabilities in his first four years as president. His plan calls for adding 3,500 active duty and 1,400 reserve Army Special Forces personnel.

-- Increase Active-Duty and Reserve Civil Affairs Personnel. As president, John Kerry will increase by 1,200 the number of civil affairs personnel - 200 active-duty and 1,000 reserves. Today's missions are increasingly dependent on civil affairs skills that are needed in post-conflict situations.

Complete The Process of Transformation John Kerry and John Edwards are committed to building an American military that leverages technology, training and education across the spectrum of conflict, for every mission performed by the active duty, National Guard or Reserve. To advance this transformation, John Kerry will:

--- Invest In The Right Technologies. As president, John Kerry will focus defense investment in advanced communications and information technologies, command, control, and intelligence technologies, precision weapons that can produce lethal and non- lethal effects, and data fusion technologies to enhance situational awareness and improve intelligence assessments.

-- Improve Counter-Proliferation Capabilities. As president, John Kerry will strengthen counter-proliferation capabilities to deter, defend and protect the United States and its allies against weapons of mass destruction. He will create new counter- proliferation units that are trained, equipped and prepared to intercept and disable nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and secure any related facilities.

more...

[Mass]

52. The piece Tom Joad has posted says just that. I imagine they may

be mistaken and in any case, it it is true, it did not last long given that his plan at the point of the election was calling for a large withdrawal in the first 6 months, but I would be curious to see the transcript of the speech. The Bloomberg article is so contrary to what I remember.

[lillilbigone]

54. Jay Newton-Small wrote a false story.

Kerry did call for increasing the size of the military. NOT IN IRAQ.

Jay Newton-Small lied to you.

[Mass]

56. Did I miss the sarcasm?

[lillilbigone]

58. I found the real facts in 5 seconds with google

And I will build a stronger military. We will add 40,000 active duty troops -- not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct terrorist operations -- anti-terrorist operations. And we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
Kerry acceptance speech

[Mass]

60. Thanks. That is what I remembered.

However, I have seen many people say the same thing Tom Joad posted, and, until now, I had never seen the source.

[beachmom]

83. That is incorrect, sir. Kerry called for 40,000 additional troops in our

standing army, but NOT in Iraq. I still say that's a good idea, as our armed forces are stretched thin, and I don't think it's right that the National Guard is having to go over to Iraq multiple times(think of Katrina, when a huge portion of the Louisiana National Guard was in Iraq and not there to help out). Also, your time frame is all off. 1972 certainly doesn't equal 2004. 2004 equals 1966 -- it wasn't until 1968 and the Tet Offensive that people realized this war was a loser. I believe 2006 equals 1968. God help us that we don't wait until the equivalent to 1973 (2011) to withdraw all of our troops.

[Tom Joad]

34. Tens of millions marched on the Streets opposing the Iraq war before it started.

Where was Kerry???

He put his faith in Bush.

Millions of us knew better.

[politicasista]

36. If you are so concerned about the war

Why don't you get behind those that are trying to end it rather than letting ONE person that caused all this get away with his lies, let alone off the hook?

No, because it shows that you care more about playing chess games and using a vote that wouldn't have mattered as a litimus test than the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That won't bring the soldiers home any faster will it?


BTW: You also missed the OP's main point.

[Tom Joad]

40. Dennis Kucinich is working to end this war.

Jim McGovern (no blood relation to George) is working to end this war by calling for defunding the war.

Cindy Sheehan is working to end this war.
George McGovern is working to end this war.

Kerry is still doing too little, too late. He still wants to fund the war (George and others worked to defund the Vietnam war, and that is how it stopped).

[LittleClarkie]

37. You forgot WWII

(and Poland)

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. I always forget Poland

[depakid]

45. Not Wayne Morse of Oregon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Morse

[wyldwolf]

47. god damned war mongerers!

[David Zephyr]

51. Read the Pentagon Papers. The original sin was with Allen Dulles & Eisenhower.

The groundwork for the Vietnam War was long in place before JFK became president.

You are right in that it was LBJ who took it to a full blown war.

[WildEyedLiberal]

63. True, but Gulf of Tonkin was the excuse to escalate it into a full blown war

We didn't have the draft before Tonkin.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. Factually wrong--there WAS a draft before Tonkin

I knew I remembered hearing of people being drafted in the 1950s, and sure enough, Wikipedia bears me out:

The wartime draft was extended by Congress, but it expired in 1947. In 1948 the draft was re-instated. It was expanded by the Universal Military Training and Service Act in 1951, in response to the manpower needs caused by the Korean War.
In the first and only instance of U.S. conscription during a major peacetime period, the draft continued on a more limited basis during the late 1950's and early 1960's. While a far fewer percentage of eligible males were conscripted compared to war periods, draftees by law served in the U.S. Army for two years. Elvis Presley and Willie Mays were two of the most famous people drafted during this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United...

[mzmolly]

61. One of the best "ironic" posts ever.

[Cameron27]

65. This analogy doesn't fit, IMHO

but even if it did, the Tonkin Resolution should have been a hard lesson learned.

John Kerry was vocal enough against Vietnam, why not apply the same vigilance towards bush and Iraq? Bush is certainly not more trustworthy than LBJ.

If we apply Vietnam as the standard, then those who voted yes on the IWR are much more culpable than those who voted for the Tonkin Resolution simply because they had the advantage of hindsight.

edited to note that this was already stated in post 8 & I completely missed it the first time.

[ProSense]

69. By that standard Clark is complicit!

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY

BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

The IWR was a vote to continue inspections because Bush was building a case for war.

Kerry:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

The threat wasn't imminent!

Kerry:

...But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Here is what Bush did:

He told a lie in the SOTU in January 2003:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Then he sent a letter and report to Congress which included lies and false information.

Nothing was going to stop Bush from going to war. He had the War Powers Resolution. He had the a 2001 resolution to pursue the 9/11 terrorists (the same one he claimed authorized him to spy on Americans). He had a war budget for Afghanistan. He had the country believing that Iraq had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Some people enlisted to go fight in Iraq for those very reasons!

Bush was going to war no matter what. The IWR was to hold him to inspections and to agree that he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort!

Bush lied!

[Cameron27]

82. No Clark was referring

to the Levin Amendment.

Here's what Clark had to say about which resolution he supported:

"Well, what I said in testimony repeatedly was that I believed that Congress should empower the president to go forward with a resolution to the United Nations. But I warned against giving him a blank check. I would never have supported the resolution as it ultimately emerged."

The only amendment or resolution that mentioned the UN was the Levin amendment. . He also mentions it by name in a video linked at the site.

http://www.muhajabah.com/clarkblog/2005/06/clark_and_ir...

[SOS]

66. "They gave a green light to the war"

The US assumed responsibility for training the South Vietnamese Army in 1955 after Dien Bien Phu.
The first US serviceman was killed in 1959.
The US started using Agent Orange in 1962.
Diem was assasinated with US help in 1963.

The Senate was swayed to an 88-2 vote by McNamara's false testimony.
The cold war was at it's peak. The US was in a proxy war with Russia in Vietnam for years before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
The Democrats did not "get us there". Eisenhower "got us there" 10 years earlier.

Comparing that vote to the IWR is absurd.

The invasion of Iraq was a unilateral, unprovoked attack against a soveriegn nation.

The Senators in 1964 believed that the the North had attacked the Maddox.

What exactly did the yes-voting Senators in 2002 believe? That Hussein masterminded 9/11? That he could nuke London in 45 minutes? That he had a slingshot?

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. "They were swayed by McNamara's false testimony"

And most yea voters in 2002 were swayed by Powell's false testimony that Iraq definitely had WMDs and that this vote would provide a means for the US to pressure the UN to get weapons inspectors into Iraq. Senators in 2002 believed that Saddam had WMDs, and so did 90% of the American people.

Before Tonkin, we had very small-scale specialized troop commitment. After Tonkin, we had general infantry sent in and a draft to swell the ranks.

It is simply not credible to argue that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was somehow not responsible for Vietnam but IWR was responsible for Iraq. Of course, if one wants to be honest, one would acknowledge that neither resolution was responsible for either war, but that's not the game most here at DU want to play, so be it.

[SOS]

156. Timeline...

The IWR was in October 2002. Powell presented his cartoons at the UN in February 2003.
Hussein wrote to Kofi Annan in September 2002, inviting unconditional UN inspections.
If indeed 90% of the American people believed that Iraq had WMD, then 90% were oblivious to Iraq's history from 1990-2002.
Iraq was smashed in 1991. Iraq was strangled by sanctions for ten years and was bombed incessantly in 1998-1999 in Operation Desert Fox.
People forget Clinton's massive bombing campaign which destroyed 450 targets. The result of the McCain/Lieberman Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Even with oil, Iraq had a GDP smaller than Guatemala in 2001.
As a nation state, Iraq posed no threat to the US.

McNamara unequivocally told the Senate that Russian-backed North Vietnamese had attacked the Maddox.
How can that even remotely be compared to Bush's transparent nonsense about aluminum tubes, yellow cake and a balsa wood UAV powered with a lawn mower engine?

I agree that neither resolution was "responsible" for what came after, but Tonkin escalated a cold war conflict, it did not result in an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state.
At least Johnson had the good sense to leave the Presidency.

Of course that led to pro-war Humphrey getting hammered by Nixon in 1968.
A lesson for us in 2008.

[leftofthedial]

68. I won't support either of them in the primaries for the 08 election

[WildEyedLiberal]

78. At least you're consistent

[jgraz]

70. But *WHY* did McGovern and McCarthy vote for war?

Actually, I don't really care. But I do care that Kerry, Edwards, et al. have never been able to offer a believable reason as to why they cast their vote for the IWR.

They had the same or better information than we did, and we knew that W would use that authority to go to war. Why didn't they?
They had the same or better information than we did, and we knew that W's supposed evidence was crap. Why didn't they?

We were out protesting this war before it started. Why weren't they?

My belief is that they voted for the IWR to cover their asses politically, knowing exactly what they were doing and whose lives they were risking. To me that means that they share the responsibility for this war and everything that has resulted from it.

If one of these guys gets the nomination, I'll work hard to get them elected -- but I plan on working just as hard to make sure that never happens.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Bravo!!

Well said and I'm with you 100% on this.

[Zodiak]

88. Spot on...

and I think your support strategy is sound, as well.

[dailykoff]

89. At least it wasn't because they planned to run for president!

Oh wait. . . .

[TayTay]

91. There were reasons to vote to get the inspectors in

Sen. Kerry had voted for the use of force in other circumstances. He voted for the action in Somalia as a humanitarian effort to help a starving population avoid catastrophe. He voted for the intervention in Bosnia, which actually did work out and did help to stop the genocide occuring over there.

I know that truth doesn't actually matter to a lot of people or affect their worldview, but it is possible that some people voted yes on the resolution because it required the President to do certain things, which Bush, after the fact, refused to do.

The resolution, as passed:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Btw, where on Capitol Hill did you work? How do you know what intelligence the Senators saw or didn't see. When Bush issued that order, following 9/11 that restricted all but 8 members of Congress from seeing most classified intelligence, what affect did that have on the vote? On what information got to the individual Senators?

Oh, and what affect did the Presidential signing statement have on this? There is a legitimate argument, upheld by most Constitutional scholars, that the President has the right to take action when he deems there is an 'immediate threat' to the United States. (In fact that was the subject of another vote, just the day before this IWR vote.) There is an arugment to be made that this whole IWR vote was window-dressing and that Bush would have gone to war with or without Congressional approval by interpreting the Constitution to say that he was fulfilling his role as Commander-in-Chief and keeping the nation safe from an 'imminent threat.'

You state that you knew what Congress knew, can you then explain this?

[jgraz]

96. How do we know what Congress knew? Cuz they told us.

See, there's this thing called a "floor speech", and it tends to happen quite a bit before a big vote like this. Let's take a look at one, shall we?

"Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations."

"I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time."

"These litanies of various justifications ... set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems."

-- Sen. Russ Feingold, Oct 9th, 2002

Go on, read the whole speech. Feingold gives example after example of BushCo lying about Iraq. He raises concern after concern about the lack of a mission plan, the lack of an exit strategy and the lack of any assurance that the military had the resources to fight this war. Feingold isn't debating this resolution as if it's a bargaining chip. He knows the result of its passage: that the US will go to war against Iraq.

Feingold knew. He had access to the same information as the rest of them, and he knew. It was so obvious that he was able to call it right down the line: the deception, the flimsy evidence, the lack of planning, the overextension of the military and on and on and on. He even went so far as to imply that the administration had other countries in their sights once they were through with Iraq.

He wasn't the only one. Twenty-two other Senators and 133 Representatives voted against this resolution, many of them voicing similar concerns to those that Feingold raised. They knew. They saw what this resolution meant for our country and for the men and women who would have to fight this war. They knew and they tried to stop it.

So ask yourself, how is it that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, etc were not able to see this? Are they simply that much stupider than Feingold, Boxer or Kennedy? Are they just a lot more trusting than Dick Durbin, Paul Sarbanes or Robert Byrd? Or was there something else at work here?

And while you're trying to answer that question, ponder this: we often forget that in October, 2002, the Senate was under Democratic control. Had the Democrats stood up and spoken with one voice, the resolution would have gone down to defeat and this war just might have been avoided altogether.

But we'll never know, because Kerry, Edwards, Clinton and others could not -- or would not -- see what Russ Feingold and many of us so clearly saw: that Congress was handing its power to declare war over to a sociopath. With his congressional permission slip in hand, Bush proceeded to renig on his promise of U.N. cooperation, kick out the weapons inspectors and plunge us headlong into a brand new, longer and more frightening national nightmare.

Just like we all knew he would.

[ProSense]

108. Yes read the whole thing:

Senator Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including, of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself -- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

So, Mr. President, these are all areas where I agree with the Administration.

Snip...

In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course, I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary demand.

As I said, I agree with the Administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President, there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?

Some would say those who do not unquestionly support the Administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Senator Kerry on October 9, 2002:

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

Snip…

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq . None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Snip…

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Snip...

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Snip...

That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

Page: S10173
Page: S10174

And look at at how the votes played out on this list of amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Bush told a lie in the SOTU in January 2003:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Then he sent a letter and report to Congress which included lies and false information.

Nothing was going to stop Bush from going to war. He had the War Powers Resolution. He had the a 2001 resolution to pursue the 9/11 terrorists (the same one he claimed authorized him to spy on Americans). He had a war budget for Afghanistan. He had the country believing that Iraq had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Some people enlisted to go fight in Iraq for those very reasons!

Bush was going to war no matter what. The IWR was to hold him to inspections and to agree that he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort!

Bush lied!

[jgraz]

111. And yet...

somehow Feingold and 22 other senators managed to make the right vote when it came down to it.

[mzmolly]

115. And, if Feingold would have had his demands met, he would have voted

for it as well.

[mzmolly]

112. This post deserves it's own thread.

Well done, thanks!

On edit, you should journal!

[Clarkie1]

94. You are 110% correct!

[mzmolly]

110. They don't sit on the internet perusing blogs. "They" live in an insulated

world for much of their years/lives. "They" have said they believed the Presidents "last resort" and "inspections first" mumbo jumbo. "THEY," were lied to, of course.

If one of these guys gets the nomination, I'll work hard to get them elected -- but I plan on working just as hard to make sure that never happens.

I have much respect for that position, I think you are entitled to your beliefs about why they voted for the questionable resolution. I think they wanted to be "certain" that Bush wasn't right about Saddam, and they did urge Bush to let the inspections continue. I believe they voted for inspections, and war as a last resort.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Peace