Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

23 U.S. Senators who voted against the Iraq War Resolution who do not need to recant their vote:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:46 PM
Original message
23 U.S. Senators who voted against the Iraq War Resolution who do not need to recant their vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

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

A short list which even includes Republican Chafee from Rhode Island. What did they know that all of the other Democratic senators who voted for the resolution did not know and how did they not get misled? What did Senator Kennedy know that Senator Kerry did not? While it is nice to admit to making a mistake, especially when so many now admit it was a mistake, but it certainly is much better to be correct in the first place even if they were not voting on the IWR. I think it is important for Democrats to have a candidate who does not have to apologize for voting for the IWR, but who recognized that it was all a mistake from the beginning. That would certainly give the Democrats the moral high ground on that issue. I just don't think it takes a lot of foresight to now be against now that things are going so badly. That's a no-brainer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good luck with that ...
If you find one who has the ability to win primaries, let us know ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. Why not spread the word that some of the people
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 10:41 PM by Boojatta
who currently have the ability to win primaries voted for the war?

Primaries don't bake any bread or wash any windows. They are a zero sum game. If it's not possible to build up the best choices in the minds of the people, then perhaps it is at least possible to tear down the worst choices in the minds of the people.

Of course, this proposal depends on the assumption that voting for the war was either cynically deliberate or was a kind of mistake that reveals very poor judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The 'Either/Or' proposition has a name ...
It is known as Bifurcation

False Dilemma

Black and White Fallacy

While I respect you righteous anger, the pragmatic inside of me
expects a decision will be required when I am asked to vote ...

I dont see a viable candidate down the road that BOTH voted no
for the IWR AND presents challenge enough against an entrenched
party of savages ....

I will NOT vote according to the IWR ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boojatta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
48. If you don't agree with the assumption, then that is fine.
However, it seems that a number of DUers believe that voting for the war was either cynically deliberate or was a kind of mistake that reveals very poor judgment. Are you suggesting that they have all made an elementary error in reasoning?

I indicated that the proposal depends on an assumption not because I think that the assumption is unquestionably true, but because there may be a variety of issues to discuss before it is appropriate to actually decide to implement a given proposal.

In your earlier post in this thread, you used the words "who has the ability to win primaries", but of course (and as you just said in the post that I am responding to) a candidate needs to be able to win not just a nomination, but also an election.

Now, at the risk of sounding as kooky as the inventor of Esperanto, it occurs to me that the Democratic Party could have a new type of member. These members would be called "consultants" rather than members. They would be pay nothing to become "consultants" but would instead have travelling expenses covered and get fed if they are spending a number of hours consulting on a given occasion. They would be a representative sample of the general voting public. This might be a way to get an imperfect but real sense of which potential Democratic nominees would -- were they to win the nomination -- be able to win an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Those who voted for it were ignorant fools. Or worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. They were worse because they knew better /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. There is one way that someone who voted for it can redeem themseleves in my eyes
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 05:06 PM by still_one
and it is more than just saying it was a mistake or that they were misled, that does not cut it. If they admit that they should have NEVER given that power to ANY president, because it was a direct violation of the war powers act, which Congress should have been the "deciders"

It has nothing to do whether bush lied about WMDs, or whether Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the responsibility of Congress, and they violated that responsibility. Only if someone acknowledges that will I even consider voting for someone who voted for the IWR

I was reading the IWR yesterday, and there is no doubt that bush violated the terms of that resolution, BUT CONGRESS DID NOTHING TO CALL HIM ON IT. In fact, it specifically says that they had to go back to the UN before ANY ATTACK COULD HAPPEN. That never occurred, and Congress again did not do their job.

When the Democrats take over they had BETTER investigate these violations, and if they are found, that is grounds enough for impeachment

I have changed considerably over the past six years, and NO POTENTIAL CANDIDATE will get my vote unless they stand for what is right

Chafee had far more courage voting against it then most Democrats, and the MOST honorable Senator was Feingold, who was the ONLY ONE WHO VOTED AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. well this is our list of possible candidates - because they have a brain
the rest are the greater fools - they were fooled by fear and war mongering or saw something in it for themselves to vote against what was good and righ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. There are those who were outside of Congress, and also oppossed the IWR
They should not be eliminated either as possible candidates





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. yes that is correct too - but no candidate who vote for this insanity
which is now worse with this hanging crap - they have the worng man on the rope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. That was what I was trying to infer by also including
those who knew it was a mistake in the first place. There are certainly potential candidates who opposed the war from the start and were not U.S. senators and who, therefore, did not cast a vote on the IWR. Even though he is not running, I am damned proud of my Senator Feingold for having the courage of his convictions and not putting his finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing before casting a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2Design Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. didn't kunich vote against the war???? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freefall Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Yes but he is a Representative rather than a Senator. There were
126 Nay votes among Democrats in the House and 81 Yeas. Here is a link to the record.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Peace,

freefall
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. yes, but he is in the house not the senate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
17. Why are the others necessarily fools? Perhaps those who voted against IWR
did so because, even in the face of the information given to them (about WMD's etc.), they STILL would vote against the resolution. Perhaps it isn't a question about being misled, but rather a difference of opinion in regards to how the US should respond to perceived threats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #17
38. And perhaps it was neither
a question of being misled or a difference of opinion. Perhaps they were told by their DLC masters that it would be bad for their political careers if they voted against the IWR OR there was substantial political gain in it for them (see Feinstein's new house in "the city").

This wasn't bad judgement boys and girls, this was saving their political asses. No amount of laundering is going to make that smell come out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. and only one of them
was up for re-election the year of the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Carl Levin, Jack Reed, Paul Wellstone so actually three.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveinMD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I stand corrected
I thought Wellstone was the only one. He was the only one with a real race. The others were safe. Most politicians just aren't couragous. Social movements create social change. Not politicians. I say this as a political consultant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
40. Dick Durbin too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pierre.Suave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well a few comments...
Stabenow is out, she voted for Bush's detainee bill.

I wish Wellstone were still alive, he would be the Ideal candidate, also, I thought that Conyers also voted against the War but I dont see him on your list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pennylane100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Conyers is a congressman
I believe this is a list of senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pierre.Suave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. D'oh
you are right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. These senators displayed good judgment
That's why I support Gore, Obama, and Clark. They were opposed to the war from the beginning cause they knew it was wrong. These are the kinda people we want running our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. me too and for the same reason
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. They also all live in districts where they face little to no opposition from the GOP
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. These are Senators - they don't have districts
And many of them are from states that are not solidly Blue.

And some of those who voted Yes ARE from states that are more Blue than those on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. I meant states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. But these states aren't solid blue
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 07:12 PM by beaconess
Nor are all of the states represented by Senators who voted YES solidly red.

And your argument is also contradicted by the split vote in some states - Kennedy voting NO and Kerry voting YES, for example, in Massachusetts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. So let me get this straight--
making good judgments and having the courage of your convictions only count if:

1. A politician is up for reelection, and
2. in the case of a Democrat there must be Republican opposition in their state or district?

And I thought I was a cynic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Senator Byrd voted no and said it
was the best vote he ever made in all his years as senator from that "liberal bastion" of West Virgina. Those that voted yes were utterly foolish on national security and will sound even more so trying to justify either being a gullible rube or dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Foolish on national security or rather a difference of opinion?
Bryd voted no, not because he thought the Bush administration was lying, but rather because he doesn't think the US should be involved in overseas military operations at all (even if the information were true).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. How many are apologizing for such a lapse in judgment
in voting for it. It was wrong, stupid and crass, period. Not one pol will stand up and say it was a difference of opinion. If they did then, they cement there idiot credentials so we can all have a good laugh at such incompetence and poor logic. That truly means anybody who says that should not be allowed within 10 miles of the nuclear footbal. That aye vote will live in infamy and those who cast it disgraced themselves otherwise they would not be apologizing if they did not agree. Some may attempt a leap in magical thinking saying that it was just a political vote - if so, that is just plain immoral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. No, it was poor judgment in that he (Edwards) didn't discover the truth at the time.
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 06:32 PM by Ninja Jordan
He is true when he says this. I'm talking about AT THE TIME of the vote. Had Byrd discovered the truth? Was his judgment that much better than Edwards, or did Byrd simply disagree with an operation in Iraq no matter what? If so Edwards'"judgment" is no less than Byrd's. Rather, the two disagreed about foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. with all due respect
You are welcome to your opinion but it would be nice if you stopped insisting that you are right. The excuses you are willing to make on behalf of those that voted yes on the IWR are not acceptable to others who consider matters of life and death vis a vis war something that simply isn't an equivocal moral issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. So how was it that I, little LTH
sitting here in Fresno, CA with nothing but a computer and internet connection knew the truth? About all of it. There were MILLIONS of us who knew the truth and tried desperately to be heard. We called, we petitioned, we faxed, we e-mailed MASSIVE amounts of evidence that directly contradicted the junta's claims, we took to the streets, we did everything legally possible to prevent this. Feinstein came out and said she had 10,000 calls to her office urging her to vote "no" on the IWR and 300 calls urging her to vote "yes." She voted "yes." These people had access to the truth because, if nothing else, we gave it to them!

Bullshit. The IWR was a do-or-die moment and 26 of these MF who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER voted to cover their political asses. Pardon me, but fuck 'em.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. Byrd voted no because he didn't want to give Bush unlimited authority to go to war
He said it was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution all over again. Coming from someone who was in the senate and voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, that's saying a lot.

Byrd is not a pacifist, he just envisioned us prematurely going to war without the aid our allies and getting stuck in a no-win situation (which we are in now) because he had seen it all before in Vietnam. No, Byrd didn't forsee that Bush was lying about WMD but unlike the senators that voted for the IWR he did see that it wouldn't be as easy as Bush claimed it would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. Exactly
Byrd was against unlimited presidential power and spoke of it on Constitution Day also stating that it was the vote he was most proud of out of I think it was over 750 votes in his career. He whipped out his pocket Constitution and proceeded to bash the Bush administration for their nefarious dismanteling of it in the Senate that day. This was back in September. I think he had good instincts about this administration and I think he was against the IWR for that reason alone, not necessarily just for the sake of not starting a war. He hates Bush and would not have believed the wmd BS. He is not a pacifist nor a progressive nor a liberal by any stretch, he just knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Excellent points.
Hindsight is great; everybody has it. Recognizing that current proposals are harmful, and opposing them before the harm occurs? That's the kind of intelligence and courage I support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
31. i for one will not vote for anyone who voted for this insanity
they can never be forgiven...on that day they handed a dictatorship to * the pugs and their media whores are salivating over dems running clinton because they have a real good chance of beating her...the only sure candidate we have is gore innocent on all counts with little baggage...and he is the one they fear the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Which Includes Hillary!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
50. I feel the same
It wasn't just the war, it was caving into the dictator, spitting on the Constitution, derelection of duty, tossing away congressional oversight. That's what they knowingly did whether or not they believed in the WMD story. I knew that Iraq was the wrong country when Bush decided to invade following WTC and I am not a politician. I will never get over how that IWR blossomed into what we have today but it doesn't take great imagination or genius to have been able to predict it. I have not yet forgiven them for it and hope there is at least one alternative candidate. I don't know what I'll do if there are none. Right now the yea voters are dead to me. It's a tough place to be as a Dem. Very tough decisions lie ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kat 333 Donating Member (312 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
52. Right On
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
32. Do any of these have crossover appeal ?
Kerry's pro-vote surprises me most of all, because of:

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTest...

So that's the only one I truly don't understand. Maybe we'll find out more during the 110th's Bushgate investigations.

Why don't more of them enter the primary? Why did Feingold drop out, he was my #2 guy :loveya:

I think the nay votes had a lot more to do with politics than real life at that time.

And I don't even count the hopefuls who had no vote at that time, and most are on record for waffling anyhow.

I respect this debate, I've been to two peace marches, but I've moved on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Kerry also joined the military and volunteered to fight in a war
and the IWR wasn't a "pro war" vote for him. yeah, he is a nuanced guy.

he voted for going into Afghanistan also but has been critical of the way it has been done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. "Waffling" on what and how specifically.......can you elaborate?
You said you've moved on after attending two peace marches! Why did you? Is there peace yet? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #32
45. Most of them are too old to run for President
Ron Wyden are Russ Feingold are the only ones I could see that might have a shot. Wyden isn't that spectacular though. He certainly made a good call on this vote, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
42. Means we had 23 Senators with Courage and conviction.....
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 05:35 AM by FrenchieCat
and others clearly lacking....one way or another.

However, I will say this......that I do not believe that each senators vote was made for the same purpose and under the same reasoning. As an example, 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 war mongering 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 so the fact remains that 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, the evidenced on lack of conviction)....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
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. It was all about unilaterally going to war vs a coalition in my view
DU aside, where a large percentage of the people believe Bush is behind 9/11, I think that most of the country rightfully believed that Iraq was a threat that should be addressed in a timely manner but not so imminent that unilateral invasion was necessary.

That's the key problem with the IWR. Those who dissented, such as Gore, Kucinich, Dean, Welllstone, Clark stated that they would support disarming Saddam Hussein once the UN approved it and there was a coalition in place to do so. Other than Joe Lieberman I believe that most Democrats felt the same way. Therefore instead of passing the IWR, Democrats should have used their majority in the Senate to force a resolution saying that they support the President building a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. Once this coalition has been built and the UN has given its approval, the President should come back to Congress for approval to go to war.

Instead they gave him the authority to go to war before he had built the coalition which assumed that he would actually do so. I'll admit that it would take a psychic to see that Bush was lying about WMD, but anyone with a brain could see that he wanted to go to war unilaterally and would avoid building a coalition if it would hinder his ultimate goal from invading Iraq.

Also, military experts like Jim Webb and Wes Clark were telling congress that if we go in unilaterally our troops with have targets on their backs for terrorists, basically they saw the situation we're in now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Agreed....and the measures you suggest were exactly what the
Levin Amendment prescribed!

The Levin Admendment is what most against the rush to war and the progressives supported once they realized that Bush was gonna get a vote to do "something" and the Levin Amendment was the senate partner to the House Spratt Amendment.


10/09/02:
Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE: House of Representatives The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote No on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A Yes vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments

PDATE: 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


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTLawGuy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
47. This is why I'm starting to think
that Al Gore is the only hope for our party - and our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #47
53. I've just started thinking the same thing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
51. More information
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 08:36 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