Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Folks: This Is NOT Meant To Be A Candidate-Bashing Thread (So...&...BUT)

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:43 PM
Original message
Folks: This Is NOT Meant To Be A Candidate-Bashing Thread (So...&...BUT)
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 04:43 PM by matcom
I've posted before that most of "US" KNEW the WMD bullshit WAS bullshit BEFORE the war started.

I've posted before that most of "US" KNEW the Saddam = 9/11 WAS bullshit BEFORE the war started.

I've posted before that most of "US" KNEW the war was a PNAC wet dream, planned LONG ago.

MANY of us put boots on the ground and PROVED this in PRE-War marches and demonstrations.

Those are FACTS.

NOW.......

We have candidates in 2008 who are ALREADY starting to say, "We were misled." - "I NOW regret my vote but didn't have the FACTS." - "If *I* had the information...." (I wouldn't have voted the way I did)......

"WE" weren't BLIND to "OUR" opposition.

"WE" HAD read and understood the facts (thanks to the amazing resources here at DU)

"WE" SCREAMED at our TV's during that vote and SCREAMED MORE when it was passed.

"WE" KNEW this shit was going down and what would happen.

SO....................................

SERIOUS QUESTION HERE (NOT looking to start a flame war)........

CAN/SHOULD "WE" even CONSIDER for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES a Candidate who (FOR WHATEVER REASON) NOW is regretting the most important vote of their lives (WHO APPARENTLY VOTED WITHOUT ALL THE INFORMATION AS THEY *NOW* ADMIT???)

seriously. i'm interested.

thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Happy New Year Matcom ....
I wont punish the crop of candidates forever based on their IWR vote .... I am not pleased about it, but we have to vote for SOMEONE .... right ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Happy New Year!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lisa58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. perspective is perspective...
...changing your mind when you know you've made a mistake is noble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. perspectives
changing your mind when you know you've made a mistake CAN BE noble. It can also be the worst sort of ass covering, pandering and fakery. At this point, I've seen a whole lot more of the latter than the former.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
60. the fact that you 'see'
a whole lot more of the latter doesn't mean that's what's there. It means only that's what you 'see'.

I see a whole lot of the former. That's what I 'see'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. what's your problem with "seeing"?
Maybe if certain people had "seen" things a little more clearly to begin with, we wouldn't be having this disscussion now.

The fact that you don't "see" what I "see" (and what a lot of people "saw" a few years ago) doesn't mean it isn't there to be "seen"; it means you choose not to "see" it.

As one of the George Bush's put it, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the one's you need to focus on." Some folks take things on face value, some don't, particulary where politicians are concerned. Some people watched Colin Powell's marionette show at the UN, and saw the Secretary of State warning them of dire and immediate threats; others saw a stunning stream of the absurd, the preposterous and the dishonest. Some simply saw the authority figure, and believed him, implicitly; others saw not the persona and the role being played, but listened to his words, weighed the evidence, and found it (greatly) lacking.

Many of us don't have to defend that particular vote (IWR), since we saw that it was predicated on pure bullshit and lies from the get-go. It was clear, if a person was willing to see it. And it's curious, that of all the so-called career motivated "apologies" floating around these days, none of the so-called apologizers has managed to include an apology to those people who actually opposed the war and the grounds on which it was marketed, by those residing in the halls of power and might, and by corporate media stooges. There have been precious few genuine apologies to the people of Iraq, victims of Imperial America's latter day version of the white man's burden; instead there is trite rubbish about America being the moral leader of the world. "You don't solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them".

Now, maybe you are "seeing" these sorts of "apologies" somewhere, but I'm not. Maybe you could point some of them out?

I suspect we'll continue to see things as we see them.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #66
72. I am justly mocked for my overuse of the quotation marks
a little too much, i agree.

but my point is that you are looking at the same thing I and others are looking at, and what you see is not what we see.

You have very harsh language about Edwards, which indicates your feelings about him. They do not indicate any truth about him. This is obvious, sure.
But that is the very reason that harsh language is so off-putting - it doesn't allow that language has evolved tempered and nuanced shadings, so as to reflect something of the complexity of things - like for instance that JE is not what you say he is, but he does seem like that to you. when your language is so harsh, real shadings disappear. that's why I over-and-over-emphasized the word 'see'. your post is not about edwards- given the harshness of the language it is about you and how you see things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. I completely agree.
In my opinion, we would be remiss to consider for leader anyone that displayed such poor judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes, we can. I'm not a part of the DU "we" as I hadn't found DU yet.
Colin Powell had me fooled; I believed him, and all the lies that have subsequently come out (or haven't yet). We WERE lied to. I regret I didn't know more, and am very thankful I'm not running. The wrath of DU knows no bounds!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I wasnt fooled ... but I know many were ....
The pressure was intense, and the missteps were certainly regrettable ...

I wont hold it against them, in the end, because it wont make much sense IF they are nominated as the 2008 standard bearer ... Yeah .. I am PISSED about it ... but that cannot be the end of it ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Powell was being lied to as part of the setup. His chief of staff came out and
told us firsthand that Bush lied his ass off to even Powell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. What part of Powell's speech impressed you ?
Not trying to say "I told you so," just looking for an honest recollection of what he said or did that made it credible to you?

This question -- of how his speech and the rest of the run-up to the war worked on the public -- simply haunts me; it needs to be understood, so we can prevent this from ever happening again.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. You ingrate!
You should be honored that they feel the need to humor you with such transparent lies!

Some people, sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. WE were not the ones who negotiated Iran and Syria off the table in exchange for
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 04:54 PM by blm
a vote.

That IMPROVED resolution was NEGOTIATED - attacking those stuck doing the negotiating is just wrong. SOME of those senators less inclined to support any war resolution did so because the alternative was a REAL BLANK CHECK that Bush wanted with NO weapon inspections, no further diplomacy, and included extending the action into Iran and Syria.

Bush would have been into Iran within days of taking Baghdad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. I would like to hear some very blunt statements about what went down...
I would like to hear any candidate who voted for the IWR use the words LIE a lot - I was lied to by X, I was lied to by Y.

I'd like to hear them put the lie in historical perspective to edumacate the publics - lies got us into Vietnam, we've been lied to about the 250 military and CIA interventions since WWII.

I want to hear a whole lot of truth and people can learn.

McGovern voted for the Vietnam War and then worked harder than anyone to finish it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Good point about McGovern ....
Didnt know that ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. when it became politically expediant to do so no?
sorry, was born in '69 (honest question)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I was born in '65 and my sense is that McGovern
became an anti-war activist when he realized the lies he had been told; when he saw the horror that developed; and when the people led him to realize the error of his ways --

I listen to Thom Hartmann's radio show often and he repeatedly, effectively makes the point that politicians are always looking around for a good parade that is in progress and then they run out in front and claim it is their parade. Thus, ultimately, it is the people who always create the parades and the good politicians who get involved sooner rather than later.

Some politicians are exceptions - they live their principles always - but Kucinich, Sanders, and Feingold are rare.

I think there is a difference between running out front of a good parade - recognizing why it is good - and sheer "political expediency" in which the politician is only using the people and does not believe in their cause.

McGovern believes in the anti-war movement - which is why he is still involved:



Out of Iraq - Barnes & Noble
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. This meets your criteria:
snip//

They tell us were making progress in Iraq and that there is no civil war. That is a lie. There is a civil war and it is costing American and Iraqi lives every single day and we must change course in Iraq.

They tell us the Johns Hopkins study on Iraqi casualties is phony. That is a lie. And we can see the truth on our television sets every single day.

They tell us the Congressional Page scandal is a Democratic plot to win the mid term elections. That is a lie. This issue is here because of a Republican cover-up. And those from the Party that preaches moral values that covered this up, have no right to preach moral values any more.

They tell us the North Korean nuclear test is the fault of Bill Clinton. That is a lie. North Koreas nuclear program was frozen under Bill Clinton. When George W Bush turned his back on diplomacy, Kim Jong IL turned back to bomb-making and the world is less safe because a madman has the Bush Bomb.

A lie. A lie. A lie. A lie. What we have in Washington is a house of lies and it is time to clean house in November.

And for those who question my opposition to this war, just as they questioned my opposition to Vietnam after I returned let me tell you when you know the truth when the facts are there for all to understand, when the lies and deception have finally been laid bare for all to see, then it is both a right and an obligation to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens our nation.

snip//

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=1...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
globalvillage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. I was at that speech in NH.
Jefferson Jackson dinner. Sen Kerry was awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Kerry is doing great work for us. No doubt. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. No, I don't think we should consider them.
They're either lying or incompetent if they say they didn't or couldn't have known the information leading up to this war was fake. Either way, I don't think we should give them any support for higher office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. I say we don't consider anyone who doesn't support a deadline for withdrawal. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. I would love a candidate
who always made the right decisions in the face of incorrect/false/deliberately falsified information.

Edwards' error is not a plus. His recantation is not a plus (just a required alignment with the experience of the American people). But neither are these things great big negatives to me, either. When the President of the United States tells you Saddam can attack the country within an hour, cooks up the intel to support that claim, a Senator or Representative is put in a very bad position.

The Executive Branch lied to Congress ... let us speak plainly. Had that lie been true, one could argue that the authorization for military action would have been appropriate. (One could still argue legitimately against it, though. Saddam could be deterred.)

Me, I am going to look at Edwards and all the other carefully. So far I like what he has to say. But there is a big difference between intention and implementation. I want someone with Edwards' intentions who has the wherewithal to implement them. We'll see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. the MAIN point I was trying to make was.....
if "WE" knew the lies WERE lies (based on our research) and the fact that WE were/are NOT privy to the classified docs....

CAN we FORGIVE those who voted FOR this anyway?

assume that "WE" were simply NOT 'guessing' (and most of "us" were NOT)

WE did the research and KNEW (not GUESSED) of the lies

how can we TRUST them?

*the above is a somewhat rhetorical question* (somewhat)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. And what of those who KNEW Iraq was in Civil War but wouldn't say so to the public
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 05:48 PM by blm
and who still refused to support an Iraq withdrawal plan that was crafted to deal with the reality of that civil war? That vote was last June, and all DC lawmakers KNEW Iraq was in civil war in the first months of 2006.

What about NOW? Does NOW matter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Slightly flawed statement
"WE did the research and KNEW (not GUESSED) of the lies"

WE did a lot of research, yes. But that research would not under normal circumstances be more reliable than formally issued intelligence estimates from the Executive Branch. Of course, there is little about this Executive Branch that one can consider normal.

(Aside: I must confess to having prior exposure to the military systems and force structures of the ME. I was impressed by how rapidly people around here came up to speed on those topics. My own position prior to the invasion was: "Sure, he is dabbling in WMD but he presents no credible threat and an invasion would be costly and in the long run quite dangerous. We have him contained and can easily do so in the future." But to be honest, I was suprised when absolutely no evidence of a WMD development program was unearthed. He had some old mustard gas shells and such, but that hardly constitutes a threat to world security.)

Still, one cannot say we KNEW. There is too much information we still do not have access to. Many lies of the sort stamped with red SECRET labels were dispensed to congressional leaders. Had we been confronted with that cooked up "evidence" we well may have ourselves been dissuaded from the sane conclusion.

Still, we can safely say we KNOW now. And we can proudly proclaim that we were not sold on this particular bill of goods. And this conversation of ours leads me to an important question.

I would like all our candidates to explain how they would go about preventing this kind of Executive Branch deception in the future, and how they themselves intend to not get fooled again. Unless you are talking about Dennis ... he wasn't fooled the first time. And if I recall correctly, Obama never bought in either. Good on 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Also not insignificant that Bill Clinton was supportive of action against Iraq.
Dems would have trusted his judgement as a deciding factor given that he would have had access to information that they did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
talk hard Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. you act like these guys are children and makes excuses for them
you seem to only hold people accountable when you dont' like em!

You should stop blaming and making excuses for people you are pimping and hold ALL their feet to the fire
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:34 PM
Original message
If I believe IWR took the country to war as some do, you might have a point. But, I don't.
IWR would have prevented war if it had been administered honestly. And there were senators and some congressmen who traded their support votes for a better resolution, which too many citizens are completely unaware thanks to the media's portrayal of the resolution as a vote FOR war.

Thanks to those negotiations, Iran and Syria were taken off the table and weapons inspectors were put in. Want to think what opinion would be like about Iraq right now if we didn't KNOW that the weapons inspectors found nothing in their search? Heck, without those inspectors there for the two months before, Bush would have had an easy time planting WMDs, and more than half this country would still be supporting him for 'saving' us from certain terrorism.

Sorry it bothers you, but that is reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
44. IMO, Edwards's Transgression is Worse Than Cowardice or Getting Fooled
During the 2004 primaries, he gave the impression that he not only stood by his vote, but would have invaded Iraq if he were president.

In some ways I like Edwards, but this is a major reason to vote for someone else in the 2008 primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xkenx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
63. THE TRUE INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION WAS THERE
I attended a Wes Clark PAC (SecuringAmerica.com)conference last year, at which Sen. Carl Levin spoke. He was asked about the IWR and replied that ALL the Dems. in Congress had ALL the relevant intelligence information to enable them to vote against a blank check for Bush. Perhaps if enough Dems. had had the moral courage to do so, Bush would have been forced to modify the language to require more inspections, more diplomacy, more alliance-building. Maybe, just maybe, this stinking war wouldn't have happened. Or, and I'm speaking from a purely political standpoint, the country would not be viewing Dems. as complicit with Bush getting us into Iraq, if he pursued the war anyway. As another poster put it, this vote was truly where the rubber meets the road. We can do better than support one of the moral weaklings who enabled Bush. BTW, we might just look at the video on You Tube where Wes Clark testifies to Congress in Sept. 2002, standing up to harsh Rethug. questioning, urging restraint and diplomacy, no blank check, war as a last resort. Imagine, the military general able to see with clarity and with the integrity, with the moral and political courage to put his sworn testimony on the line! And I suspect that he knew that he would be running for president. IMO 2008 calls for the true leadership and integrity that Wes Clark represents.

I am really ticked over the Dem. pols who, three years after the Iraq invasion, are now saying that their vote was a mistake, they were misled, blah blah. That's bullshit, and we shouldn't enable the Bush enablers by rewarding them with presidential primary votes in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Traveler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. I was a Clark supporter in 2004
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 05:24 PM by The Traveler
I get your points, but stand by my position that the situation was more complex than you describe. Also, one is supposed to be able to believe the Commander in Chief.

While I am not going to dismiss Edwards at this point just because of the IWR issue, I am not jumping on his band wagon yet, either. The IWR matter DOES raise questions about things like judgment , sufficient knowledge of foreign affairs to read between the lines, backbone required to stand up to merciless power, etc. I just don't think the answers to those questions are in yet. At least not for me. I am maintaining an open mind on these things.

Clark is a man of character and brilliance and lots of backbone. And, let's face it, he is all over matters of foreign policy and national security ... no one covers that better. But my regard for Clark does not derive solely from those considerations, nor his rational "let's think about this before we jump" stance on the IWR. Clark is in his heart of hearts a progressive, and in 2004 was beginning to articulate a sophisticated approach to economics, education and pressures on the middle and lower classes. Still, that was just a beginning ... and I want to know more about his approach to economic matters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. And that's why I'm voting for Dennis Kucinich:
The Bloodstained Path
by Dennis Kucinich
The Progressive magazine, November 2002

Unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted, and illegal. The Administration has failed to make the case that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. There is no credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda. Nor is there any credible evidence that Iraq possesses deliverable weapons of mass destruction, or that it intends to deliver them against the United States.
(more)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Bloodstained_Pat...

Great post, Matcom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
26. For me, an immediate disqualifyer is an Aye on IWR
and yes on torture. Both cross a line that can not be undone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greendog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
27. Don't overlook the political considerations.
We knew it was bullshit.....and yes, they knew it was bullshit too.

But.....the full force of the corporate media was behind the war. And something like 90% of Americans were behind the war.

A number of Democrats, particularly those with Presidential ambitions and those with near term reelection concerns were faced with making a "political" calculation. They decided that they might have more to lose by doing the right thing in the short term. Instead, they'd did the wrong thing and and bet they'd be able to weasel out of it later by blaming Bushco for "misleading" and telling their constituents they made a "mistake".

They also knew that once the fortunes of Bushco reversed, the media was more likely to support the notion of "misleading" than admit it's own complicity.

This might be pretty sickening to those of us that pay attention to these things but in reality most people will be satisfied with "misleading". And of course, the media will "insist" on "misleading".

I'm personally more troubled by Democrats who do the wrong thing when "political considerations" aren't a consideration. Were 90% of Americans insisting that their middle class jobs be shipped to the 3rd world? Were 90% of Americans begging their congresscritters to give the control of our national discourse to 4 or 5 media conglomerates? These are the things that I find unforgivable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Especially Dems from typically red states.
Hindsight is 20/20. Does the DU archive threads as far as three or four years back? Cause it seems to me that EVERYBODY here knew that the reasons for going to war were bullshit. It would be interesting to see what was actually being said at the time. It's really easy to be anti-Iraq War right now. For chrissakes, the goddam GOP is anti-Iraq War now. But I remember seeing a special on MTV before we went to war where young Iraqis were begging the US to go and 'free' their country. I wasn't wild about the war, but I remember thinking that if it meant that those kids could go back home safely, maybe it wasn't such a bad idea. I do remember thinking that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was bullshit, but I was torn. And I didn't have a home state of rabid war supporters to answer to. So everybody needs to do what they need to do. Wear that "I told you so" badge proudly. But for god's sake, could we stop flogging that 'they voted for IWR and that means their the DEVIL' like we are a bunch of two year olds who operate in a black and white world??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
28. No. We should not.
If there were citizens paying enough attention to know it was wrong, then there is no good excuse for our reps not to do so, as well. Plenty of piss-poor, self-serving excuses, but no good ones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. there is no excuse particularly under the circumstances that existed
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 07:18 PM by AtomicKitten
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security /

To authorize the IWR in light of the secrecy, rush to war, and imposed selective access to intelligence (see above link) was just plain wrong and, quite frankly, negligence. The Congress was the stopgap and they failed miserably. Those that voted yes demonstrated poor judgment and are, therefore, in my opinion not qualified to lead this country.

There is no do-over for those that have died. Making excuses for those that voted yes is simply not acceptable to those of us who feel war is not an equivocal moral issue. No amount of rationalization can undo this tragedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
31. Didn't you support Kerry in 2004? Or am I mistaken?
:shrug:

For the record, I do not now or have not in the past supported any candidate that voted for the IWR. But I must say that John Edwards has gained my respect for repenting of his vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Dean
Kerry in General (should have probably clarified)

sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
33. no, they should not be supported
Rather, they should be told politely, but in no uncertain terms, to go get fucked.

There's been no shortage of fake apologies, but I have yet to hear any one of the "misled" actually apologize for the right thing. If you pay attention, you'll see that they inevitably "apologize" for their "vote," as opposed to their support of a war that was unjustified under every single rationale offered for it.

It was clear to anyone who was paying attention at the time that the entire scheme was nothing but a pack of lies, and those who deigned to support it were either power-addled cowards and dolts, or the most monstruously venal and cynical opportunists imaginable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
35. What do you mean 'We', paleface?
You can consider whomever you so choose for whatever reasons resonate with you. I will do the same. The war vote doesn't freak me out like it does...well, obviously, you. I won't let a single issue dominate why I vote. I want a total package. It seems like single issue voting is how the other side works. They tap the nerves of the gun people and the abortion people and the gay marriage people and get their votes even though their total package actually has nothing to do with any of those things. I am looking at the WHOLE candidate and will cast my primary vote accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
37. They had the information. The vote Edwards cast was political, like all the rest.
We should hold all of them accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. How did Clark vote again?Oh, that's right, he didn't have to.
He's never held an elected office. I keep forgetting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. LOL. Can't you do better than change the subject?
23 honest and patriotic senators did their duty and did what was right.

Edwards joined the group who did only what seemed policially expedient at the time. That's not leadership, that's cowardice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. I didn't think I had.
Vote how you need to. If Clark does it for you, good. I happen to like him, too. But don't pretend that you know how he would have voted if he had been in the same position as Edwards, Kerry and those who voted to pass the IWR. This is an easy war to be against now. Like I said somewhere else, even the damn GOP is against it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Clark testified before both the House and Senate years beforehand
What a convenient memory lapse on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. I am not a clarkophile.
I haven't really kept up with his testimonies. Can you give me a link so I can see what he said?

Also, do you think there might be a difference between testifying before Congress and being a member of Congress? I dunno, its a fine line, but I am thinking that there could be some different pressures brought to bear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I corrected that memory lapse. And it isn't so convenient for Clark
"..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.."

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressrele ...

I stole this from a post by sandnsea. I hope they don't mind. It looks to me like Clark is telling them to pass the IWR. What do you get out of it?? Looks to me like Clark would have voted FOR the IWR. If he had ever been elected to something that would have given him the chance, that it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Actually by October of 2002, Clark was supporting the Levin amendment.....and it is
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 01:27 AM by FrenchieCat
not the same blank check resolution that the Bush-Lieberman resolution represented. By then it was a known that something was gonna pass...the question was what?

The difference between those 2 resolution and the Biden-Lugar one?

The Levin amendment would have forced the Bush regime to COME BACK to congress for a 2nd vote AFTER a vote by the UN security council.

The Biden-Lugar resolution would have authorize to disarm Saddam, but not depose him.

So no, Clark would not have voted for "that" resolution....
for clarification...


http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq...

10/09/02: Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution S.J.Res.46.
Dont give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 10/09/02


Also note that the two "selected" paragraphs you posted are not the sum of the total of Clark's views on Iraq IN 2002.

SO note this here....

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
"Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.

Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09...

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
"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..."

"...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. "

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
"In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.

....there is still time for dialogue before we act."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.ira... /

Gene Lyons interview on Wes Clark with Buzzflash-

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html


On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02


WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.ht...

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpres...

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03

All CNN quotes located here.... http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the wise words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it!

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.h...

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone
As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2...


Sept. 26, 2002

CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingsprepared...


We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.

I think you know with the value of hindsight what you realize is that there are many, you know, ifs, would-haves, and buts in situations like this. The question before the United States of America is whether we think our intelligence system is so faulty and our lack of information so gross that we would feel the need to rush to a military solution before we've taken the time to adequately build up the diplomatic and full military support capabilities that will assure we get a more favorable outcome. And, you know, it's a question of where the weight of the evidence is.

I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
-----------
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingsprepared...

---------
I especially liked this part, same testimony 9/26/02:

Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.

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

09-02-03
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: U.S. WAR IN IRAQ IS STRATEGIC BLUNDER
Wesley K. Clark was Supreme Allied Commander for Europe (NATO) and ran the U.S.-led war in Kosovo, ... spoke on Sept. 2 with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.


I certainly can also locate more 2003 statements...but I think that the 2002 statements are more appropriate to your question.


10/10/02: Retired General Reflects on United States Policy Towards Iraq


www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html

University of Massachusetts at Boston


Retired General Reflects on United States Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)

By Michael McPhee

Wesley K. Clark, retired general of the US Army, was the distinguished guest of the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs on October 10. Over seventy-five people came to hear the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe discuss his reflections on the US policy towards Iraq.

Edmund Beard, director of the McCormack Institute, introduced Clark and gave an account of the generals impressive military career, which includes command at every level from company to division. Clark is both a soldier and scholar, graduating first in his 1966 class of the United States Military Academy at West Point and holding a masters degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Clark, who was the NATO commander in charge of the effort to stop the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, spoke of his experiences in Bosnia, where he learned first-hand about the chaos of unleashed ethnic hatreds. It is exactly this chaos that has led Clark to raise a voice of concern over possible conflict with Iraq. Clark believes that a military war with Iraq could be over in as little as two weeks. He is concerned with the lack of a long-range plan for the chaos that would ensue among the Kurds, Shiites, and those factions loyal to Saddam Hussein, which Clark believes would play out on a much larger scale than what took place in Bosnia.

Clark spoke of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, seeing it as a time when the U.S. lost its adversaries and failed in its foreign policy strategy. At that time there were two groups in Washington debating the role of the military; one group saw the military merely as the fighter and winner of wars; another group, led by Madeleine Albright, saw the military as a useful tool in aiding third world countries.

In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administrations preemption policy and striking out.


Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
69. If I win the lottery, I am donating every dime to charity. Every single bit of it.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Makes me sound like a great person, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. hehe
I see you haven't lost your spunk.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #49
71. "Spunk". That's a nice way of putting it.
And Hello to you, too!!

I have been gone awhile, but I really enjoy this place when I am here. I am going to really try to NOT do what I started doing last night. Which is to take it personally. It's pretty funny when you think about it, cause I am willing to bet that the actual players don't take it nearly as personally as some of us do here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #43
59. Then why did HASC members say Clark was right 2 1/2 years later?
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 02:30 PM by Jai4WKC08
Don't you think it strange that, when Clark and Perle appeared before the HASC together a second time in April 05, committee members from both parties (except for Duncan Hunter of course) who were there to hear them both in Sept 02, said Clark had been right and Perle had been wrong. Don't you think they knew what Clark was recommending at the time?

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A10

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. is a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war...

As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

...

It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)... (But w)hen Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-20...



Seems to me the only people who pretend that Clark was for the war back in 2002 are those who oppose Clark for other reasons now -- especially those who support someone who lacked the wisdom and/or cohones to stand up against the war when it counted. But make no mistake, at the time, NO ONE on either side had any doubt whatsoever that Clark opposed giving Bush the blank check that was the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Bingo.
It's more political gamesmanship. I have much more respect for John Edwards who says he had it wrong then, and that he has learned from that mistake, than I do for his supporters who try to downplay the significance of that mistake by pretending those those who got it right the first time had it wrong also. It's the tear down others to prop up your own guy school of politics. Edwards supporters are on their strongest ground when they are proud that Edwards admits his former mistake, and when they point out Edward's various strengths, not when they promote revisionist history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
73. Force should always be a last resort???
My god. What a novel concept. Perle didn't believe that and he was wrong, wow, no kidding.

Perle made up a bunch of shit about what Clark said in 2002 in order to humiliate and discredit him. That's what they do. We all know that.

Clark 'urged caution in Iraq'. Nobody here has said he didn't. That's a VERY different thing than knowing Iraq didn't have WMD, as some try to very wildly pretend. Or being against the war, and more specifically, the IWR. Clark laid out the very plan most Democrats who supported the IWR followed. It was spun as something wildly different since, letting Bush off the hook for saying it wasn't a vote for war and that he had no war plans at the time.

It's stunning that anybody would use the lies of Richard Perle to vouch for Wes Clark. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Yeah, it's funny how EVERYBODY now says that they just KNEW
there was no WMD in 2002. EVERYBODY knows the media was already leaking that Bush was lying. I was not privy to that media. The media I saw and read was swallowing the Bush agenda hook, line and sinker. In October of 2002, only 13 months after 9/11, if you so much as said you MIGHT disagree with Bush you were called unpatriotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Spin spin spin
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 10:20 PM by Jai4WKC08
And that's being generous. Tom's word "revisionism" is probably more accurate.

Better read the article again, if that's the best you can do.

Perle didn't make up jack about what Clark said back in 2002. He was there with Clark before the HASC in 2002, and those are all things he said AT THE TIME. He wasn't lying about Clark's position then or later, and most of the same people were on the committee both times and they all heard it. The difference is, in 2002, the Repubs all agreed with Perle that Clark was wrong. In 2005, even they had to agree that Clark had been right all along.

Hell, even Duncan Hunter knew where Clark stood back in 2002, even if he will never admit Clark was right.

That's my point. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, for or against the IWR in 2002, knew Clark was against it back before the vote. It has only been since Clark ran for president that his political enemies have tried to obscure where he stood and how hard he worked to get people to vote against the IWR.

On Edit: Oh I almost forgot. No one I know of has ever said Clark thought Saddam didn't have WMD. In fact, Clark quite plainly thought he did. But not nukes. Please see my post below for an explanation of the difference. And fwiw, unlike all of the senators (but especially those on the intelligence subcommittee), Clark had ZERO access to classified information after he retired in the summer of 2000. He can't be expected to have known then how shaky Bush's intelligence really was. But Bob Graham knew. And if Edwards had come to work, he'd have known too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Oh Maaarry
Clark didn't even know where he stood on the IWR. He had to ask. He was confused, since he's the one who recommended a resolution in the first place and he damned well knew it. Which Perle spun into Clark being a wuss about war, since Clark insisted on war as a last resort. It's clear to anybody except those who insist on lumping together the vote and the war.

The argument against anybody who 'voted for the war' is that DU "knew" all the WMD evidence was lies and the Senate should have too. And yet, the Senate relied on people like Wes Clark who believed Iraq did have WMD, along with everybody else in the world. Clark, Gore, Dean, none of them "knew" what DU "knew". If they "knew" so much, then why weren't they out there saying there was no evidence of WMD and Bush was lying? They weren't. They were weaseling around saying pressure Saddam, unilateral war if we have to, resolutions to pressure the UN, disarm in 60 days, and more. They didn't "know" anything and they sure didn't come out against the war. This has been the other big lie about the war and has been a distraction that has let Bush get away with lying about his intentions to go to war when he was telling the country he didn't have any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
67. Scarifice is whatever it is
Clark had to decide between losing life-long friends who believed that it was wrong to question a CiC, and his country. He chose truth and country.

When Richard Clarke met Wes Clark for coffee, he asked General Clark what he should do with the information he had about bush's rush to war. Wes advised him that "they" would try to ruin R. Clarke's reputation; that "they" had gone after him. Nevertheless, said Wes, the country is more important.

Since Wes Clark was on the phone with Daschel trying to fashion the wording of an amendment that would force bush to return to congress before going to war, I believe that he it is obvious he would have voted "no." He knew that bush was about to unleash the dogs of war.

Fact: there were discussions that went on behind closed doors. They ALL knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. I actually like Clark a lot. This is not about Clark for me.
This is more about people saying how someone who was not given the opportunity would have voted had they been in the position TO vote. Maybe Clark wouldn't have voted for the IWR, I couldn't really say. But it seems like there are a lot of people who know FOR SURE what he would have done. I just don't see how anybody, even Clark, could know that with surity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #70
80. My opinion: Clark would have voted for the IWR
Or to use the dishonest, demagogic tone of most of DU, Clark would have 'voted for the Iraq War'.
That's Dem-agoguery one inch at a time, for those unfamiliar with how it works here at DU, and when I hear that phrase I immediately dismiss the source as thoroughly, willfully dishonest. You can make your own judgements on that.

Anyway, back to the issue.

I'm a huge fan of Wes Clark. He was my main guy throughout 2004 from well before he announced his candidacy till he dropped out and I threw my support to John Kerry. I listened to everything he said about invading Iraq from 2002 on, and furthermore, agreed and still agree with everything he said.

And I believe, rather strongly, that if he had had to make an up-or-down vote as a Senator, he would have done what most of the Dem Senate did, to varying degrees of buy-in:

- warned about rushing into war only as a last resort
- insisted we complete the inspection regimen
- implored the Administration to get the UN on board
- concede that he had to have faith in the Administration to do what was best for America in any scenario
- vote for the IWR with all of those caveats

And I wouldn't blame him for it, any more than I blame the others.

Those parsing ten pages of Wes's caveats think those caveats prove he would have voted no. Most everybody who had to vote had caveats too, like Kerry and Hillary. The caveats in themselves aren't determinative, and as such don't differentiate a final yes or no decision. Wes, like the rest of them, and probably moreso given his military heritage and as well his seemingly trusting, non-political nature to simply do what is best for the United States in any circumstance, could truly not have forseen what a bunch of unmitigated traitors to America Republicans have become in their quest for unbridled power. Wes would have trusted, I believe, ultimately in the system.

Oh, and one last thing that always seems to get lost. Funny, since it's the most important thing: it didn't make a flick of difference what any of these Senators voted for or didn't vote for. BushCo was going into Iraq from December 13, 2000. Try to remember that in all the internecine Dem bickering that goes on about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. There's one BIG difference
Yes, I agree with you that Clark had pretty much the same caveats as Kerry, Clinton, and many of the other Senators who voted for the IWR. I happen to think that's what he was trying to say in the infamous Nagourny NYT article.

The difference with Clark is that he knew Miloseyvic. He knew the heart of a tyrant. He knew not to trust Bush.

Sorry, but I can't believe that someone who talked Ted Kennedy out of voting for the IWR (according to Kennedy's own words) would have turned around and voted the other way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. I hadn't heard that
Wes had actually talked anyone out of voting for the IWR, and context there makes a difference. Did Kennedy say that 'Wes
Clark convinced me not to vote for the IWR' in some private conversation, as in Wes wouldn't have voted for the IWR himself
and he convinced Kennedy not to, or was it more like Kennedy saying 'listening to Wes Clark's testimony I was convinced not
to vote for the IWR'? The former indicates Wes had a firm position and propagated it, the latter simply means Kennedy's
mind was swayed by Wes's opinions but not that Wes himself wouldn't have voted for it, with trepidation and caveats, when it
came down to it.

I suspect the latter, because I never heard Clark say outright that the IWR should be voted down. I may have missed that of
course.

Unlike many here, I don't judge candidates based on the IWR vote. I don't hold the IWR vote as some major barometer of
either ethics or morality. For many, it sways their positions on candidates, and sometimes even what they will actually
believe people have said and meant. Not me. My opinion of Wes wouldn't be swayed one iota had he ultimately voted for the
IWR or voted it down had he been in the position to do so. Same as I feel about Kerry and Hillary. In fact, I tend to think that
a yes vote on the IWR was the appropriate vote for Democrats at the time.

I'd still like to hear exactly what the context was of Kennedy saying that Wes Clark "talked out of voting for the IWR". If
you've got a reference for that maybe you could dig it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. It's posted up-thread at #46
Edited on Sun Dec-31-06 07:54 PM by Jai4WKC08
You might want to read thru that post before you make such a profound judgment on what Clark might have voted for or not. But here's the part to which I was referring:

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.h...


You might also go to youtube.com and do a search for Wesley Clark. There are a half-dozen video clips from Clark's testimony. The one I like best is where he's being questioned by Jeff Sessions, and Clark is all but banging the table (you can tell he's holding back), saying don't spill the blood of young Americans just because you're frustrated with allies and international institutions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-31-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Yes, I read that post
skimmed through alot of it, being eight pages (FrenchiCat!!!) and all, but actually read through that particular part.

And it doesn't even come close to saying that Wes Clark "talked Ted Kennedy out of voting for the IWR".
Which is exactly why I asked the question I did, and in exactly the way that I did, in my last post.
And it looks like I was right in my assumptions regarding exactly what you were inferring.

You're really stretching with that characterization. It might be more accurate to say that Ted Kennedy was influenced to vote against the IWR based on Wes Clark's and other's testimony in front of his committee. And it doesn't even go THAT far - saying "we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time" doesn't even mean don't support the IWR. That's the big disconnect, between voting to allow the CiC the authority to make war, and supporting making war. It's the difference in honor between Bush and say, somebody with a scrap of honor. I think Wes might well have given his belated support for an IWR without supporting "going to war at that time", as many others did. In any case, being part of a committee's testimony against going to war right away isn't the same thing as being against giving the President the authority to hold that card.

And again, it doesn't matter to me which way Wes might have voted, any more than it matters to me which way others actually did vote. I've said that twice, clearly. I don't think it makes a difference. I would respect Wes Clark for voting for the IWR just as much as Wes Clark voting against the IWR.

I'll try to look at Wes's testimony on YouTube. If I can stomach Jeff Sessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. Wow...
If you can read that Kennedy, in his own words, "was inclined to support the administration" at the start, but was "influenced... to the greatest degree" by the testimony of the generals, foremost among them when "Clark testif(ied) in opposition to going to war at that time..." And I say "foremost" partly because Kennedy names him first, almost four years later, but also because if you read the transcript, Clark was the one doing almost all of the talking against the war... and he's the one they called back in 2005 for the same reason. Clark was the one EVERYBODY identified with opposing the war back in 2002. You can search until doomsday and you will not find a contemporary account that says anything different. It has only been since Clark ran for office that SOME people tried to make it look differently, and all for their own reasons and agenda.

But regardless... If you can read what Kennedy said and still come up with the idea that Clark did not oppose the IWR, you really are just unwilling to let your opinion be changed by facts.

Let me ask you... why on earth would anyone bother to testify before Congress against going to war unless it would be to stop passage of the bill that would authorize going to war? Why would he publish an op/ed just a few days before the vote entitled, "We should wait" (or something like that... working from memorty). Especially why would a military guy take the risk of being publicly identified as opposing the Pentagon when he could only lose by his testimony... friends, career opportunities, access to administration officials... He had absolutely no reason to testify except to attempt to keep Bush from getting a blank check and sending American soldiers to die for no good reason.

As Clark said to Judy Woodruff once, he couldn't sleep at night if hadn't done everything in his power to try to stop what was happening to the men and women in uniform.

One other point. Clark says he opposed the IWR. He says he considered Saddam a threat who had to be dealt with eventually, not necessarily militarily, but Saddam was not an imminent threat that warranted a pre-emptive war. He says he wanted a resolution that Bush could take to the UN, but that required Bush to come back to Congress before invading Iraq. You may think it's no big deal as to whether he would have voted or it or not, but it IS a big deal if you think he's lying about it now. Is that what you think?

I couldn't support Clark the way I do if I thought he would lie about that. I might vote for him, as the most capable of cleaning up Bush's messes at home and abroad, but he'd be just another politician. Thing is, Clark has NEVER EVER given me any reason to doubt his word, on anythng. And to the contrary, he has given me every reason to believe he speaks the truth, at least as he sees it, sometimes even when doing so might be harmful or risky to himself or what he's trying to accomplish. I know some people reading this, if they've gotten this far, will think I'm naive or deluded, but they don't know Wes Clark. The man is a Boy Scout and always has been. Frankly, it's a tribute to just how intelligent and capable he is that he made it to four stars with his integrity so firmly intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. You know
I keep asking one question, and you keep ignoring it. When did Wes Clark ever say he opposed giving the CiC IWR authority back then? I ask because I listened and I never heard him say that. I could have missed it, but given the number of times I listened to him, and listened for it, I didn't hear it. Listened for it; didn't hear it. Listened for it; didn't hear it. Listened for it; didn't hear it.

So I keep asking. And you keep telling me how he was against invading Iraq. I know that. I knew that. It isn't hard to know that now, or to have known that then. It's not news to me. It's the same position every other Democrat took: we shouldn't invade Iraq until all other options have been exhausted - now is not the time to go into Iraq. Wes' reasonings were far more comprehensive and convincing than anyone else's to my mind, but it was still, nonetheless, the same position as virtually every Democrat, many generals, and many others took about invading Iraq at the time.

But it's not the same thing as voting to give the CiC the authority to invade Iraq to bolster his hand in dealing with Iraq. They are two different, albeit related, things. That difference was all the difference in the world back then. You see, while most everybody was against invading Iraq back in 2002-3, on the other side of the coin you have the mainstream media liars questioning the patriotism of anybody who wouldn't give the great protector of 9/11 (there aren't enough sarcasm avatars in the world for that) the authority to confront the madman of Iraq.

They aren't the same thing.

So I keep asking. And you keep demurring, telling me things I already know. So I ask yet again, do you have any reference to Wes Clark saying he would vote against giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq? Even with a hundred hours of Wes Clark on cable TV talking about the issue, all I saw him talk about is how it would be wrong to invade Iraq, not that he wouldn't give the President the authority to do so.

So far, the only attention you've even given to my single, solitary question, is to say, without attribution or reference or even an unsubstantiated memory you might have about that time: "One other point. Clark says he opposed the IWR." Your words in quotes, not his, just so there's no confusion here.

Now, I don't need you questioning me whether I think Wes Clark is a liar, based on no substantiation to a question I've repeatedly asked. In response to that inferred insult let me just say, I'm sure I think alot more highly of Wesley Clark than you do.

I'd be happy to hear that Wes Clark spoke out against giving Bush the IWR authority, but for the life of me I can't remember anything of the sort back then, so even if he was against it, why didn't I hear him actually say it? Maybe he did and I missed it.

One final time: When did Wes Clark publicly speak out against giving George W. Bush IWR authority?

And just so you don't run down that road again: that doesn't mean an inference that because he was against invading Iraq at that time that that proves he was against giving IWR authority to Bush at that time. Every Dem and probably many Republicans were against invading Iraq at that time, but many voted for IWR to give the CiC the ability to play that hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #86
87. You know what I think is funny?
How people keep trying to convince me (and you) that Clark would NOT have supported the IWR and we don't consider that a deal breaker for supporting someone. I only care in the context that they use that to say he is superior to others when, as he was NOT IN THE POSITION TO VOTE, noone (including him) could say what he would have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. Yes, exactly
It's not a deal breaker, or even a deal modifier for me whether he would have voted for the IWR or not. And yet for some Clark supporters it is vitally important that others see him as anti-IWR. I think at least part of their favoritism towards Clark is that they can see him in that way. My support for Clark is far broader than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renie408 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. And another thing...Wouldn't that be considered sophistry on Clark's part?
Or at the very least, having his cake and eating it, too? IF he was against the IWR, why didn't he come out and say so? Why did he leave his position so unclear that we are STILL debating what he thought? Possibly because, for somebody who wasn't a politician, he still knew how to cover his ass? I assure you, I don't think its a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. Word games
Edited on Mon Jan-01-07 06:39 PM by Jai4WKC08
"IWR authority" = "giving the CiC the ability to play that hand."

Have you ever read the IWR? The unfettered authority to invade Iraq is exactly what it gave the CiC. Whenever he saw fit, with or without UN approval, with or without any other authorization from anyone else. Everything left completely to Bush's judgment and Bush's judgment alone.

That is what Clark testified against. Not against any resolution, but definitely against a blank check resolution (at the time of his testimony, there were several amendments pending, so no, he wasn't testifying against any IWR, but specifically against the content of the one that eventually passed. There are plenty of quotes to that effect up and down this very thread. If you refuse to see it, nothing more I can say will convince you. Fortunately, the majority of people who know who Clark is kno exactly how he would have voted. Like Kennedy, they know where Clark stood. It was that obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tactical Progressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. Word games is what you have been playing
Trying to pretend that being against invading Iraq is the same as being against giving Bush IWR authority.

Maybe you missed the fact that the difference between those two things is what all the turmoil and rancor has been about since. Democrats against invading Iraq at that time were politically forced into giving up that authority to the 9/11 hero Bush, to 'deal with terrorism'. But when it comes to Clark, you want there to be no difference at all, so you aren't going to see one.

Sorry, that simply doesn't fly in the face of reality. You couldn't show Wes coming out against the IWR on any of his hundreds of TV appearances, let alone repeatedly and forcefully imploring people not to vote for the IWR, as he so strongly spoke out against an immediate invasion of Iraq. So you twist words to pretend they are the same thing. I called you on it and you couldn't deliver. Not your fault: Wes simply didn't come out against giving Bush authority, only for not invading Iraq. And he wasn't even on the hook for the IWR decision, and yet he still couldn't make that play.

You've failed to prove something that doesn't exist, and your attempt to shoehorn what does exist into proof of same is blatantly ineffective. By your reasoning, every Democratic Senator who voted for the IWR was against the IWR. Because they were all opposed to rushing into Iraq before the inspection regimen was completed and without UN support, like Clark. That is word games.

You seem to need Clark to have come out against the IWR so that you can support him in good conscience, and so you make what he said fit what you need to hear. I have no such need, and support Clark for what he really did, and didn't, say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:45 PM
Response to Original message
45. I know how you feel. That is why I want Gore to run. I consider it a huge
test of a candidate's judgment and political courage. I can't help it. I just do. If he doesn't run then my second look goes to Obama and Clark.

I like pretty much all of the candidates running so I don't think I'll have any big problem accepting whoever wins it.

If the winner of the nomination did vote aye, I'll deal with it and support them just as enthusiastically as I did Kerry in 2004 (which was very enthusiastically). That being said though - I really can't help my strong preference for a viable candidate who was against the war before it started and spoke out during that horrible time period during the run-up to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
47. I feel ya, but sadly, i'm not sure we'll have much choice
I must admit, it irritates me to hear those candidates make excuses like that, since if *I* had access to all that information before the war, there's no reason they shouldn't've. All those explanations from Edwards, Kerry, and Clinton have me yelling at the TV just like I was yelling at the TV four years ago.

For my part, I seriously doubt I'll be voting for such a candidate in the primaries, but when the general election rolls around, I guess I might have little choice. And as irritating as it is to me to hear those excuses/explanations, I understand the politics of the explanation.

As much as I would appreciate hearing it, I don't expect any notable figure to ever say "I was cowed into voting for the IWR. I knew it was wrong; We all knew we were being lied to, but the president's ratings were through the roof, and so we went along to get along."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:27 AM
Response to Original message
48. Bullshit then, bullshit now
I said it a cazillion times in 2004, how funny that everybody denies all the 2003 panic stricken 'what if they find WMD threads'. There were very few people here who even professed to 'know' Saddam didn't have WMD. Of those, what they 'knew' was the side of the information they chose to believe. If the OTHER side of the information had proven to be true, then this forum wouldn't be here today because everybody would have become instantly irrelevant. There was as good a chance that DU would be proven wrong as Bush was - because absolutely nobody KNEW anything for certain.

And after all this time, Dean STILL said Saddam had WMD and should disarm in 60 days. Clark said Saddam had or was seeking WMD and force should be used as a final option, along with Gore who said the same thing.

Even Dennis Kucinich left open the possibility that WMD existed, otherwise he'd have had no need to insist on continued inspections.

The people who got Iraq right are the ones who voted to get inspectors in Iraq, and then opposed the war once Bush launched it without finishing the inspections process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Was there a difference in types of WMDs and the urgency that different kinds of WMDs would signify?
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 05:19 AM by FrenchieCat
I believe that there was a significant difference, and those who choose not to make that distinction are purposely omitting a very important point in the debate that was had on the very important matter of war and peace .....

Wes Clark as well as the others (Gore, Dean, & Kucinich) always insisted that Saddam DID NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR CAPABLE WMDs which is what the Bush Regime intimated when speaking of "Mushroom Clouds" to the public in pushing their war....and it should be noted that these would be the ONLY WMDs that would have posed a threat to the United States that could be termed as imminent. A preventive war was never anything any of them supported, and none of them felt that even Israel was being threatened. All of these men wanted evidence of these WMDs; and they wanted the evidence to be presented to the United Nations, and they wanted the United Nations to vote once the evidence had been shown.

Further, the Belief of any urgent/imminent threat was never anything that Gore, Clark, Kucinich or Dean ever articulated, or insinuated ever....which is why none of them felt that going to war was something that needed to be rushed or that evidence ever even justified it. I do not believe that any of these men felt that a blank check authorizing war should be given to George Bush on the first come.

I will also add that I do not believe that John Kerry's vote on the IRW had the same kind of "strength" behind it as that of John Edwards. That is evidenced with the text of the speeches that John Kerry gave vs. the Op-Ed and speeches that John Edwards gave. The fact that Edwards linked Saddam to 9/11 as a rational and the fact that he co-sponsored the IWR (along with very conservative Hawk like Dems) gives me the notion that their support for Bush's tactic were not identical. It is clear that John Edwards clearly supported Bush's war in 2002.....although I do not believe that this can be said about John Kerry, as I believe him to be much more skeptical and cynical about the whole matter. And so, based on his own words and actions, I believe that John Edwards was and is a hawk (cause he was recently talking hawk trash about Iran at a recent AIPAC gathering
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=114957263742...
)for whatever reason and so he gets absolutely no pass from me. He didn't have to justify Bush's need for war with an Op-Ed published prior to the vote in a national publication. John Edwards clearly stated that he felt that the ME region was being "threatened" and that the authorization given to Bush would be to deal with establishing order in the region and to provide protection for Israel (NeoCon reasons thru and thru).

However, the problem for John Kerry starts here--First, I never quite understood why John Kerry voted Nay against the first Gulf War (in where we had an actual viable coalition) and yet found it necessary to vote Yeah to give Bush Jr. authority to go to war. What was the difference? It would appear that the first Gulf war seemed just a tad more justified (by not much though) than this last Iraq invasion, and so, I don't understand Kerry's reasoning. Could someone help me out on that one?

That being said, I do believe that John Kerry, under normal circumstances (that is if he had not been intent on running for President) would not have made a "Yeah" vote based on all that he said.....but he did. And as much as you attempt to align Sen. Kerry's position with that of the others you have named (and you make a case for it, but unfortunately that is not the real problem), the fact remains John Kerry voted for something that (in my heart of heart, I believe) he really didn't want to vote for (and therein lies the rub, i.e., the problem)....and that question of why he did has not ever really been answered by John Kerry in a credible manner (and I certainly would read info on that if it is available)....because I do not believe that John Kerry "wanted" to trust the President to do the right thing....and so the question remains; If John Kerry believed as Clark, Gore, Kucinich and Dean did that there was no imminent threat to the United States from Saddam, and Saddam had no Nuclear WMDs....then why did he vote to give the President the authority to go to war?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. Yes, WMD can be a slippery term
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 03:14 PM by Jai4WKC08
Technically, it means nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons. And despite what the OP says, pretty much everybody who knew anything thought that Saddam had chemical and probably biological weapons. I was an Army intelligence officer back during the Clinton years (and before) and we sure thought he had them. Clinton even bombed one of Saddam's weapons facilities where we believed he was storing WMD, and despite what the Repubs said, it wasn't to wag the dog.

It's just not that hard to maintain chem/bio arsenals. Chemical agents have been used since WWI (chlorine gas in the trenches, for example), and biological warfare goes back to putting diseased bodies in catapaults and lobbing them over castle walls. Almost all the belligerent nations of the world keep chemical weapons in some form or another; there's no sophisticated technology involved.

So when Gore or Clark or anyone else said Saddam had WMD, it seemed pretty far fetched that he might not. His own generals thought he had them, and there's more than a little evidence that Saddam himself thought he had them too, or at least thought it was a bluff worth making.

But when BushCo talked about WMD, they were purposely trying to imply Saddam had nukes, or was on the verge of getting nukes, knowing damn well he didn't and wasn't, but also knowing the average American couldn't or wouldn't make any distinction. BushCo used the term WMD to scare people and let them assume the worst. That's why people who knew better (like Gore and Clark) would go on record to say, yes, Saddam has WMD, but we have time, that there was no need to rush to war, that the threat was not imminent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #48
62. More lies about Gore, Clark, and Dean
to cover you-know-who's yes vote.

Nice try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
50. I think it's one of those conscience issues...
Each person must decide individually how important the IWR vote is in making their choice for a candidate.

To some people it's all encompassing; to others it's just 1 issue of many.

For me, it's quite personal & probably the most important issue.

The info was out there for anyone to find it, if they wanted to.

Bob Graham, (Sen. Fla.) was head of the Intelligence Committee, & warned his fellow Dems against the fixed intel.

Linc Chafee went to the CIA, had a private briefing, & said there wasn't enough evidence to go to war.

So, an apology is nice, but to me it's hollow & meaningless. 3000 troops dead & 25,000 wounded, not to mention the Iraqis. Can an apology make everything OK? Sadly, not for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Don't forget the Billions spent in treasure......
which could have been spent on say....poverty!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Ironic, ain't it?
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year's Frenchie!

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. Happy Holidays to you as well, my friend!
:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:07 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. I think we are looking at trillions when you factor in the
cost of the Iraq War veterans, the interest payments on the debt to fund this debacle, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
89. "which could have been spent on say....poverty!"
In a way, it has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
54. If such a person is elected President, what message does that send
to our elected officials regarding their future votes - vote for war and you too can become president one day....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemDogs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
56. Bobby Kennedy was for the war in VietNam when I was against it
But I was for Bobby, because I want a thinking president who cares about the things I care about.

Can't believe the moderators haven't torched this thread yet BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I was for Bobby too! But John Edwards ain't no Bobby Kennedy....and this ain't 1968!
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 07:31 AM by FrenchieCat
and Bobby didn't vote "for the war", and his brother Ted didn't vote for our latest one either...and sure didn't co-sponsor it or write an op-ed or two stating why he was "for it"! :eyes:

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King (Interview is from 2006, cause a few wiser men and women learned a thing or two from Vietnam)


KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.h...


But Why torch the thread? Don't like what's in it? Prefer rubber stamps in its stead? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
68. Who should I vote for then ?
Huckabee? He didn't vote for the IWR
Gore? He sold me out in 2004, and I don't know why?
Clark? He waffled, could have helped, but he didn't.
Kooch? Love him, Can't win the General
Guiliani? He didn't vote for the IWR
Romney? He didn't vote for the IWR
The LIST of DEMOCRATS WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR The IWR? Feingold withdrew
Mark Warner? He didn't vote for the IWR, but withdrew
Bayh? He withdrew
Vilsack? He didn't vote for the IWR, can he win the general?

Thank goodness I'm not a 1-issue gal :D


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
75. I don't think we should consider them.
Not one bit. This is too important an issue to let any of them off the hook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
76. Unfortunately, I think we have to consider some of these candidates
As someone who tried to speak out on this war and was one of the left that knew what a disaster this would be, I so want to just tell these idiot politicians that, "We told you so and you were too moronic to see the facts" I marched in my share of protests and called and wrote to them. Looking back, I think I was able to see clearly because I had noone I politically trusted enough to let them sway me. I just read the information and looked at it. What I suspect happened to these politicians is that the 'senior' foreign policy experts pulled them aside and gave them 'secret' information that Hussein was a threat. I remember one conversation I had with a friend and she just kept replying to my arguments that what happens if the war advocates are right? The politicos saw no opposition in the DC political class and didn't trust their own judgement. They also saw it as political suicide to oppose the war.

I will only support candidates in the primary who opposed the war, are pro women's rights, and will make global warming our number one primary. I suspect that I will have to compromise eventually and support others because very few politicians meet my expectations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NotGivingUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
78. no, they should not be considered. eom
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 Sun Aug 31st 2014, 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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